^% 


<>^:\%^^ 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


«"  IIM  mil  2.2 


u 


2.0 


1= 

U    ill  1.6 


Photographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


£: 


4? 


iV 


<v 


;\ 


^ 


<^ 


\ 


6^ 


<^ 


» 


33  W-STMMtNSTSE'T 

WEBST^IO.K  Y.  14580 

(716)  <i73-4503 


4*        Mi      ^       ////y 


&/ 


f/i 


* 


o 


\ 


i 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


D 
D 

n 
n 

D 

0 
n 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couveriure  de  couleur 

Covers  damaged/ 
Couverture  endommagee 

Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaur6e  et/ou  pellicui6e 

Cover  title  missing/ 

Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

Coloured  maps/ 

Cartes  gdographiques  en  couleur 

Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 

Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material/ 
Reli6  avec  d'autres  documents 


r~7    Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 


n 


n 


along  interior  margin/ 

La  reliure  serr^e  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 

distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  intdrieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajout^es 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  6tait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  dt6  film^es. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  suppl6mentaires: 


L'Instltut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'ii  lui  a  6t6  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-dtre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  Is  .T)6thode  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiquds  ci-dessous. 

□    Coloured  pages/ 
Pages  de  couleur 

□    Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommag6es 

I      I    Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 


D 


Pages  restaurdes  et/ou  pelliculdes 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxec 
Pages  ddcolor^es,  tachetdes  ou  piqu6es 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  ddtachdes 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 

Quality  of  prir 

Quality  indgale  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  materii 
Comprend  du  materiel  suppl^mentaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Feule  Edition  disponible 


r~^  Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 

I      I  Pages  detached/ 

r~7  Showthrough/ 

I      I  Quality  of  print  varies/ 

I      I  Includes  supplementary  material/ 

□  Only  edition  available/ 
5 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  6t6  filmdes  d  nouveau  de  fapon  d 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  film6  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqui  ci-dessous. 

10X  14X  18X  22X 


26X 


30X 


J 


12X 


16X 


20X 


24X      » 


2IX 


32X 


The  copy  filmed  here  has  been  reproduced  thanks 
to  the  generosity  of: 

National  Library  of  Canada 


L'exemplaire  filmi  fut  reproduit  grflce  d  la 
g6n6ro8it6  de: 

Bibliothdque  nationale  du  Canada 


The  imetias  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Les  images  suivantes  ont  4t6  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
de  la  nettetd  de  l'exemplaire  film6,  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  sppropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprimie  sont  fiimds  en  commengant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  selon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  film6s  en  commenpant  par  la 
premiere  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  derniAre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  ^^-  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"),  or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 


Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparaitra  sur  la 
dernidre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbole  — ►  signifie  "A  SUIVME  ",  le 
symbole  V  signifie  "FIN". 


Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  dtre 
filmfo  A  des  taux  de  reduction  diff(6rents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  dtre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clich6,  il  est  fiim6  A  partir 
de  I'angle  sup6rieur  gauche,  de  gauche  d  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  nteessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mithode. 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

1 

\ 


\ 


i 


o 


\^ 


^ 


KKLATIX(;   TO 


THE  TREATY  OF  WASHINGTON, 


.3 


\> 


a 


VOLLME  II— GENEVA  ARBITRATION. 


CONTAIiNING  THE  KEMALNDER  OF  THE  PArERS  ACCOMPANYING  THE  COUNTER 
CASE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES;  COUNTER  CASE   OF  HER  BRITANNIC 
MAJESTY'S  GOVERNMENT;  INSTRUCTIONS  TO  THE  AGENT  AND  COUN- 
SEL   OF    THE    UNITED    STATES,    AND    PROCEEDINGS    AT 
GENEVA   IN    DECEMBER,   Wi,    AND    APRIL,   1872; 
CORRESPONDENCE     RESPECTING    THE     GENEVA 
ARBITRATION,   AND   THE   PROPOSED  SUP- 
PLEMENTAL ARTICLE  TO  THE  TREATY ; 
AND  DECLARATION  OF  SIR  STAF- 
FORD NORTIICOTE  AT  EXETER.  ,-^^^3====;-^, 

.>";r^5  ^'"^'^^  <*  Tk'-" 


S1950 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT    PKINTINU    OFFICE. 
1  S  7  2  . 


'C 


rAHLI<:  OF  CONTKNI^S. 


n^ 


Reinaiiuler  ofpapiTs  accompanyiiij;-  tlic  Counter  Case  of  the  United  States 

Coiiiiter  CaHo  of  Iicr  IJritannic  Majesty's  Goveininont 

I.  Iiitrodiictoiy  statcnicnt 

II.  Aifiiinifut  of  the  IJniteil  States  on  neutral  duties 

III.  rrt-eedents  apiiealed  to  by  the  I'nited  States 

IV.  A'arious  coni])iaints  of  the  I'nited  .States  against  Great  IJrituin.    TralHciu 

iniinitions  of  wai' 

y,  Tlie  .Sumter  and  Nashville, 

VI.  Tlie  Florida  and  Alabama 

VII.  The  f ieorgia  and  Shonandoaii , 

VIII.  The  Clarence,  Tacouy,Arcln'r,Tusealoosa,  Tallahassee,  Chickamau)^a,and 

Ketiibution 

IX.  Ki>ce]ition  of  the  confederate  cruisers  in  IJritisli  port.s 

X.  Conclusions 


I'aK.-. 


1 
11)7 

'207 

•Jl>7 

;{-.>i 

:?:u) 
:s4b 


a.  Mr.  Fish  to  Jlr.  Davis 

Nov.  14,  1H71 


IXSTIUTTIOXS  TO  rilK  AliKXT  AM>  ( '( H  NSIJ,,  .VXI»  I'liOCKKDlXtiS  AT  (IKXKVA  IX  DKCIOMlJKn, 

1.-71,  AND  Al'JilL,   inl'^. 

I.  Mr.  Davis  to  Mr.  Fish Sul»niits  a  printed  coi»y  of  the  Case  and  its 

Nov.  l;{,  1*^71.  accompaniments.  Circumstances  attend- 
ing its  preparation 4l;J 

Acknowledges  receipt  of  the  Case.  I'resi- 
dcnt's  approval  thereof.  May  present  it 
and  its  acconii)animeuts  at  Geneva,  in 
the  manner  required  by  the  Treaty,  as 
t)ie  Case  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
documenta,  &c.,  oa  which  they  rely 41:5 

3.  Same  to  same Instructing  Mr.  Davis  on  the  subject  of  his 

Nov.  14,  1871.  duties  as  Agent  of  the  United  States  be- 
fore the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  Ge- 
neva   414 

4.  Mr.  Fi.sh  to  the  Counsel General  instructions  for  their  guidance  as 

Dec.  H,  1H"1,        counsel  for  the  United  States  before  the 

Tribunal  of  Arbitration 41t) 

5.  Mr.  Davis  to  Mr.  Fish Arrival  at  Geneva.    Meeting  of  the  Arbitra- 

Dcc.  1."),  1871.  tors.  Cotiiit  Sclopis  chosen  to  presifht 
over  the  Tribunal.  Mr.  Stiimptii,  on  re- 
(|uest  of  the  Tribunal,  names  Mr.  Favrot 
as  secretary.  Cases  presented.  Trans- 
mits copies  of  notes  which  accompanied 
the  same 41(j 

6.  Same  to  same Meeting  of  the  Arbitrators.     Exchange  of 

Counter  Cases.  Uritisli  Counter  Case, 
accompanied  by  a  note  from  Lord  Tenter- 
den  to  the  Arbitrators.  Kejily  of  Mr. 
Davis  thereto.  Telegram  from  Mr.  Fish 
received  relative  to  claims  tiled  in  the 
Department  of  State  since  March  22d. 
The  Arbitrators  and  Uriti.sh  Agent  in- 
formed thereof 41rt 


April  I."),  187->. 


CORI{K.si'OXnEXCE  HESI'KCnxtJ  THK  (ilONKVA  AlflllTIlATIOX  AXIJ  THK   rUOPOSKD   .SLl'ri.K- 

MKXTAI,  AUTICI.K   TO   THH   TUKATY. 

1.  Gen.  Schenrk  to  Mr.  Fish London  journals  demand  withdrawal   of 

(Telegram.)  Feb.  2,  lH7'«i.        claims  for  indirect  damages.    Ministry 

alarmed 425 


IV 


CONTENTS. 


•».  Mr.  Fish  to  fion.  Sclienck 

(TclfgiiiMi.)  Ftib.  a,  inr-J. 

:J.  Gi'ii.  8clHMi(k  to  ilr.  Fisb 

(Tfjicgriiiii.)  Fell.  .">,  187"^. 


4.  Goii.  SclieiK'k  to  ICail  (iriuivillc. . 


."».  Gen.  Selioiick  to  Mr.  Fish 

Feb.  1(»,  Ir'l'i. 


(!.  Gen.  Hcheriek  to  Mr.  Fish 

fTch'Kiani.)  Feb. -27,  187'^. 


7.  Mr.  Fish  to  General  Scheiu-k 

(Telegram.)  Feb.  27,  lt;7-.>. 

8.  Mr.  Fish  to  Gen.  Schenek 

Feb.  -27,  lril'2. 


9.  Mr.  Fish  t<»  Gen.  Sclieuck 

(Telegram.)  Feb.  27,  1872. 


10.  Gen.  Schenek  to  Mr.  Fish 

(Telegram.)  Feb.  2H,  1872. 


Pape. 
There  innst  \n'.  no  withdrawal  of  any  part 
of  elaim.    liepndiation    of  Treaty  not 
anticipated 42.'> 

.  Comninnieates  Karl  Granville's  note  of  :5d, 
giving  Hritish  interjtretation  of  Treaty, 
"Her  Majesty's  (Jovernincnt  hold  that  it 
is  not  within  the  province  of  the  Tri- 
bnnal  of  Arbitration  to  decide  upon 
claims  for  indirect  losses  and  injuries.".  425 

Keply  to  Earl  Granville's  note  of  3d.  United 
States  will  )«!  gratilied  with  assurance 
tliat  Great  Britain  does  not  desire  .;o  in- 
terpose obstacles  to  prosecution  of  Artti- 
tration.  Object  of  the  United  States  is 
identical  witii  that  of  (ireat  liritain  to 
establish  amicable  relations  between  the 
two  countries,  and  to  set  an  example  how 
two  great  nations  can  settle  disputes  by 
reference  to  Arbitration.  Will  inform  his 
Government  as  to  British  opinion  regard- 
ing indirect  claims 42fi 

Conuiu'iils  on  the  argument  as  used  in  I*ar- 
liament  to  sustain  the  position  taken  by 
Her  Majesty's  Government  in  relation  to 
their  interpretacion  of  tl'b  Tioaty 427 

Interview  Avitli  Karl  Granville,  w  lio  states 
that  Sir  Kdward  Thornton  had  informed 
him  that  Cabinet  at  Washington  had  re- 
jected Mr.  Fish's  draught  of  reply  to  his 
note,  and  had  taken  fnrtlu'r  time  for  con- 
sideration. Karl  Granville  was  itrejiared 
to  recommend  to  ller  Majesty's  Cabinet 
that  they  should  not  ])ress  lor  withdrawal 
of  American  Case  if  the  agent  of  the 
United  States  shall  inform  the  Arbitra- 
tors, before  their  miicting  in  June,  that 
the  United  States  do  not  ask  award  on 
indirect  claims 429 

Rejjorted  rejection  untnu.'.  Kntire  nnan- 
imitv.  (Jranville'ssnggestion  inadmissi- 
ble 1 429 

Referring  to  I'.arl  Granville's  note  of  'Ml 
Geneial  Schenek,  the  President  sincerely 
desires  to  iironiote  an  abiding  friendship 
between  tiie  two  nations  to  which  the 
note  so  hajipily  refers.  Kcniews  the  ob- 
ject of  appointment  of  the  .Joint  High 
Connnission  "to  provide  for  an  amicable 
settlement  of  all  causes  of  ditVerence  be- 
tween the  two  eountiies."  The  United 
States  desire  to  maintain  the  jnrisdictiou 
of  the  Tribunal  over  all  unsettled  claims — 
thatthe<niestionsoflaw  involved  therein 
b(!ing  adjudicated,  all  questions  arising 
out  of  the  "x\labania  Claims"  may  be 
forever  removed 429 

Commends  his  reply  to  Earl  Granville's 
note  of  ;>d.  Acceptance  of  friendly  assur- 
ances of  British  note,  but  thinks  position 
taken  therein  unsustained  by  the  history 
of  the  negotiations  between  the  two  Gov- 
ernments    43S 

Earl  Granville  desires  certain  changes  made 
in  language  of  hi.s  proposal i\i4 


11 


10. 


18. 


CONTKNTS, 


rnili'. 


11.  Ml'.  Kisli  to  (it'll.  Stlii'iM'k. 


(Jtiiiuot  iij{ict'  to  l<jirl  (iiaiivillc's  juoiiosal. 


(Tolcj^riiiu.)  I'cl).  "-i.*,  l-*7->.     D.'.siro  of  tliis  ( Jovcriiiiicn!    to  niiM't  tliat 

ot<ii«at  IWitaiii  in  aii^  lionorablf  adjn.st- 
iiU'iit  of   tlic   iiiL'i(U'iital  <|<<*'>^ti(>ii  \vlii<;li 


12.  (icii.  Sclii'iick  to  Mr.  Fish. 


Mar.  I(>,  li-T-J. 


1:^.  fit'ii.  Sclit'iick  to  Mr.  Fisli. 


Mar.  '21,  1.-72. 


11.  (ii:ii.  Sclit'iick  to  Mr.  I'-isli 

(Teh'f^raiii.)  April  1,  1H72. 


1').  Mr.  Fisli  to  Gen.  .Schfiick 

(Telfjjram.)  April  2,  1872. 


luiH   arisi'ii 4IU 

Statin-,'  tlial  lie  lia<l  left  a  <'opy  of  Mr.  Fish's 
instriu'tioii  of  27fli  tiltiino  with  Earl 
(iraiivillt'  with  rcjjanl  to  the  lu-oviiiit)  <if 
Ihe  Trihniial  of  Arhitration  to  docido 
iil»on  certain  claiins  jiri-st'iilt'd  by  the 
AKent  of  thi(  United  States i:M 

TransiiiilH  rejdy  of  I'arl  (Iranville  of  Marcii 
20tli  to  Mr.  Fish's  instnietioiis  of  27th 
ultimo,  to  him,  ((ioneral  Sehenck,)  and 
I)rintc<l  inemorandiim  in  tlwee  parts.  His 
note  treats  upon  iueidental  orconsecineii- 
tial  (lainafjes.  Kevi«i\v.s  the  Johiisoii- 
Clareiidon  Treaty.  I'art  1  of  the  memo- 
randum treats  "on  the  waiver  of  claims 
for  indirect  losses  contained  in  the  'Mth 
I'rotocol."  I'art  2,  "on  the  coiistriictioii 
of  th(^  Treaty  of  Washinjjtoii."  I'art  !{, 
"on  the  amount  of  the  claims  for  indi- 
rect lo.sses."  (ieiieral  .Stdi-'iick,  in  reply, 
states  that  ho  will  forwanl  the  above  to 
his  (ilovernment  without  delay 4'.ir> 

Asks  whetluM"  there  is  any  objection  to 
Jhitish  (jiovernment  lilinj^  Counter  Cast^ 
withmit  prejudice  to  their  position  in 
legard  to  cousequeutial  dama<fes. 4(50 

United  Stiites  understand  that  British  (Jov- 
ernmeiit  is  bound  to  tile  Counter  Case. 
The  rijjhts  of  both  jiarties  will  bo  the 
same  after  lilin<{  Counter  Case  as  before.  4G() 


16.  Mr.  Fiah  to  Gen.  Sehenck Reply  to  Earl  Granville's  note  of  March 

April  IG,  1872.  20tli  to  General  Sclient.k.  Keview  of  cor- 
respondence during  and  since  the  then 
l)endiuf5  neij;otiations  between  Mr.  Jolin- 
.son  and  Lord  Clarendon  for  a  convention 
for  the  settlement  of  the  "Alabama 
Claims"  ciuestion 4()0 

17.  Gen.  Sehenck  to  Mr.  Fish Interview  with  Earl  Granville,  who  stated 

April  18,  1872.  that  Hriti.sh  Government  believe  that  a 
fjeiieral  desire  prevails  anionif  the  jieo- 
ple  of  the  United  States  for  the  with- 
drawal of  claims  for  indire<.t  losses,  (ieii- 
eral Sehenck  rei)lied  that  the  Govern- 
ment and  citizens  of  the  United  Sta  es 
were  i»articularly  desirous  that  the  <|ues- 
tioii  and  extent  of  the  liability  of  a  neu- 
tral should  be  arrived  at,  so  that  the  rule 
and  law  for  all  might  be  known  in  t'le 
future 474 

18.  Mr.  Fish  to  Gen.  Sehenck The   indin>ct  claims  were  not  eliminated 

April  2S,  1872.  from  the  general  complaint  of  the  United 
States.  Neither  the  tJovernineut  nor  the 
American  people  have  ever  attached 
much  imi)ortance  to  the  so-called  indi- 
rect claims.  The  United  States  do  not 
desire  a  pecuniary  award  on  their  ac- 
count. The  Pi  esident  is  desirous  of  pre- 
venting a  failure  of  the  Arbitration  ojf 
repudiation  of  the  Treaty 475 


VI 


CONTKN'l'S. 


!'.».  Ci.ii.  Sclu'ink  t.)  Mr.  Kisli 

Ainil  'jr.,  1-7-,'. 


•J(i.  Mr.  I"i>li  to  (iiii.  .*<(lHiMk 


'21.  ICiiil  (Jiain  illc  to  Sir  E.  TlKirnton 

Ai.iil  '2'J,  l?-7v!. 


'22.  Gen.  8clioiick  to  Mr.  Fisli 

(Telfgnnn.)  April  :!(>,  l^T-i. 


•2:\.  .Sir  K.  Thoriiton  to  Karl  Griiiivillo 

April  30,  1872. 


24.  G«Mi.  Sclienck  to  Mr.  Fish 

(Telegram.)  May  2,  1^*72. 


2.').  Earl  Granville  to  Sir  E.Tlinrnton. 

May  2,  lfc72. 

2n.  yiv.  Fish  to  Gen.  Schenek 

(Telegram.)  May  4,  1-^72. 


I'uKa 
It  aj.i.ears  )in>lialilt^  now  that  the  Uritiwh 
(Jovrniiiicnt  will  take  smh  eoiuso  as 
will  )int  an  end  1o  the  Arliilrat ion  and 
to  the  Treaty.  Coninion  eoiivietion  in 
Great  Ihitaiii  that  the  lii-sl  and  most  in- 
llnenlial  mm  oi'tlic  IHitrd  St  a  trs  desire 
to  h:i\i'oiM'  (iovcinnicnt  recede  I'rom  its 
IMi.silion 470 

Neither  ill  the  Case  noi-  in  any  instriietions 
have  the  I'nited  States  asked  for  ])ecii- 
niary  damages  on  aectiimt  of  iiidiieet 
losHes.  It  is  thdiight  essential  that  the 
(piestion  li(>  decided  whether  claims  of 
similiii'  ehaiaeter  can  in  the  fiitnii^  he 
ailvaiiced  against  the  I'nited  .^states  as  a 
neutral  hy  (Jreat  Ihitain  when  the  latter 
is  a  helligerent 477 

Conversation  with  (ieiieral  Seheindc  as  to 
Mr.  Fish's  suggestion,  \iew.s  of  Cahiiiet 
and  letter  to  (ieneral  Schenck  coinmnni- 
cating  i)ro[iosed  draft  of  note 478 

Earl  Granville  states  tli.at  liritish  Govern- 
ment ohjects  to  having  Arhitrators  ex- 
jircss  opinion  on  indirect  elaiins  when 
the  two  Governments  agree  that  they 
are  Jiot  the  suhj<'ct  of  award.  Sends 
dranght  of  a  jiossihle  note  from  Earl 
CJranvilh',  in  wliich  it  is  stated  that  Her 
Majesty's  Government  adhere  to  tht.-ir 
view  that  it  is  not  within  the  i>rovinee 
of  the  Arhitrators  to  ei>nsider  or  decide 
npon  claims  for  indirect  losses 4^1 

Conversation  with  ^Ir.  Fish  as  to  state- 
ment of  Lord  Granvilh^  resjiecting  with- 
drawal from  ar))itration.  Suggestion 
made  hy  Mr.  I'ish  that  agreement  for 
the  I'litnre  shonld  he  otfered  hy  England 
in  return  for  engagement  that  I'nited 
States  would  not  ask  for  niom\v  award 
for  indirect  claims 4H1 

Sends  introductory  i>art  of  note  trans- 
mitted hy  telegraph  April  :U).  Her 
Majesty's  (iovernment  «lo  not  wish  to 
comnH.'iico  a  diplomatic  controversy  on 
the  snhject  of  indirect  losses,  hut  nu-rely 
to  comidy  with  the  desire  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  tin;  United  States  to  head- 
vised  of  the  reasons  which  had  iiromj.ted 
the  declaration  made;  hy  Her  Majesty's 
Government  on  the  'M  of  Fchrnarv- .   . . 


483 

Copy  of  letter  to  General  Schenck,  imdos- 
ing  proposed  preface  todranght  of  note.  484 

The  President  cannot  justify  his  assent  to 
the  terms  of  the  proposition  of  the  lirit- 
ish Government, as  communicated  in  tel- 
egram of  ;?Oth  April.  He  cannot  assent 
to  any  proposition  which,  hy  imjilication 
or  inference,  withdraws  any  part  of  the 
claims  or  of  the  Case  of  this  Government 
from  consideration  of  the  Tribunal.  The 
President  adheres  to  the  opinion  th.at  it  is 
within  the  i>rovince  of  the  Arhitrators  to 
consider  and  determine  the  liability  of 
Great  Britain  for  all  the  claims  put  for- 
ward bv  the  United  States 484 


C  ONTENTS. 


VII 


47G 


47< 


478 


481 


tor 

lul 

<l 

aid 


4^11 


iis- 

Icr 

to 

oil 

rely 

ov- 

lul- 

ty's 
4e:i 

los- 
te.  4^4 

to 
it- 
tel- 
eiit 

on 

tlU! 
Hilt 

lie 
tis 

to 

of 
or- 
■...  484 


•27.  Oen.  Hehdick  to  Mr.  Fish 

(Telegruiii.)  May  .'»,  1-72. 


28.  Gen.  Selieiick  to  Mr.  Fish 

(Telegram.)              AIny  ti,  l-t/^. 
'20.  Mr.  Fish  to  Gen.  Sehenek 

(Tolegiaiii.)  May  0,  Id/ti. 


:J0.  Sir  E.  Thornton  to  Earl  Granville . . 

May  G,  187 ,i. 

'M.  Earl  Granville  to  Sir  E.  Thornton . . 

Mivy  (i,  ld7*2. 


.32.  Earl  Granville  to  Sir  E.  Thornton . , 

May  (i,  1872. 

3:J.  Mr.  Fish  to  Gen.  SeheiH'k 

May  7,  1872. 


34.  Gen.  i^chenek  to  Mr.  Fish 

(Telegram.)  May  7,  1872. 

3.').  Earl  Granville  to  Sir  E.  Thornton . 

May  7,  l.-'72. 


3C.  Mr.  Fish  to  Gen.  Sehenek 

(Telegram.)  May  8,  1^72. 


Will  urge  Karl  (Juniville  to  nioilify  hisjiro- 
jiosal.  Asks  lor  snggrstinns  as  to  what 
iiKidilicalions  would  make  it  jjossilile  lor 
tlie  I'resideiit  to  assent  to  it.  Aiiprehends 
that,  rather  than  snhiiiit  indireet  claims 
to  Judgment  of  'I'riliuiial,  the  Ihitisli 
GoveriMiu'iit  Avonld  cense  lu'gotiatioim 
and  make  an  alisolut(>  declaration  against. 
)Miieeediug  with  the  Arhitratiou.  Asks  if 
the  lollowiiig  were  sulistituted  for  that 
sent  on  Ajiiil  lid,  would  I'nited  States 
give  its  assent:  Her  Majesty's  (Joverii- 
meiit  now  ready  to  slate  that  if  the 
rniled  States  do  aglee  not  to  press  for 
pecuniary  award  lieforo  the  'I'ribunal, 
Iler  Ma.jesty's  (Joveiiiment  will  not,  in 
the  e\eiit(if  Itecoiuinga  belligerent  while 
the  Uinted  States  is  a  lU'Utral.  advance 
any  eliiims  againsf  the  United  States  on 
account  of  any  indirect,  remote  or  conse- 
([Uential  I'csulfs  of  a  failure  to  oliseive 
their  neutrality 48.'> 

Transmits  amended  itio)M>sal.     Same  sub- 
ject as  contained  in  No.  27 4"'('» 

An  agreement  binding  future  act  ion  of  this 
Gv)vernmeiit can  be  madeonly  by  tr«'aty, 
and  would  renuire  the  assent  of  the  Sen- 
ate. If  Tribunal  decides  against  jteeii- 
niary  damages  for  eonsetiiiential  resiiltH 
of  failure  of  any  nation  to  observe  its 
neutral  obligations,  such  decision  would 
be  regarded  as  settling  the  <|u»;stioii 
between  the  two  (ilovernments  in  the 
future 48(5 

Statement  of  :Mr.  '-'isli  that  United  States 
cannot  withdraw  any  i>art  of  their  Case. .  487 

Conversation  with  (General  Sehenek.  Ob- 
jfeetions  of  American  (ioverniiKiiit  to  pro- 
posed draught  note.  Amended  driinght 
note  suggested  by  General  Sehenek....  488 

Copy  of  revised  draught-note  commnnieated 
by  Lord  Granville  to  (J(Mi«!ral  Sehenek..   490 

This  Government  is  of  oi»inion  that  the 
submission  of  what  are  called  the  in- 
direct claims  is  within  the  intent  of  the 
Treaty,  and  their  consideration  within 
the  ])rovinee  of  the  Tribunal.  The  I'resi- 
deiit is  anxious  to  reach  a  settlement  of 
the  im)iortant  (|uestions  before  the  Tri- 
bunal ;  is  willing  to  consider  and  Avill 
jiresent,  if  possible,  for  consid»'ration  of 
the  Senate,  any  new  article  which  may 
be  proposed  by  the  Hritish  Government.  491 

Apprehends  that  Hritish  Government  -will 
declare  against  submission  to  arbitra- 
tion of  question  of  indirect  damages 491 

Communication  hy  (Jeneral  Sehenek  of 
telegram  from  Mr.  Fish  and  of  his  in- 
tended answer 492 

This  Government  cannot  withdraw  from 
the  province  of  the  Tribunal  what  it  be- 
lieves to  be  entirely  within  their  com- 
jietence.  If  the  Britisii  (Joveiiinient  per- 
sist in  their  demand  for  the  withdrawal 
by  the  United  States  of  indireet  claims, 
the  responsibility  of  a  failure  of  the 
Treaty  must  rest  with  thein 493 


VIII 


COXTKNTS. 


C  Kail  Grnnvillt'  to  Sir  E.  Thornton 

Mil  J  -,  l-T-^. 


^t*^.  Suiiie  to  .same  . . 


May  -,  1-T-.'. 


•XI  (J.Mi.  Sclicnck  to  Mr.  Fisli 

(Tili'j;ram.)  Ma.v  'J,  1-7','. 


■I'l.  Saiiif  to  saiiif 


Mav  ll.  n?-'. 


11.  Saiiii-  to  Haint- 


May  I),  l-T->. 


4i.  Karl  (iranvillc  to  Sir  1'..  Thornton 

May  'J,  1-7-J. 

l!.  Oon.  S(  hcnck  to  Mr.  Kish 

(Ti-l.';;ram.)  May  10,  l-T.'. 


11.  .Same  to  suaie 


May  10,  1-^7-,'. 


4r>.  Karl  Granville  to  81r  K.  Thornton 

May  10,  lt^72. 

4!^  G<n.  Schonck  to  Mr.  Fish 

May  11,  lc*7i>. 


47.  Earl  Grauvil:e  to  Sir  E.  Thornton 

Mny  i:?,  1-7-i, 


row 
('oMVHn>ation  wjih  (ii-ncral  Schcnck. 
I'tiitiil  .*»tat«-*  (iovcrnnn-nt  sn^i^cst  thai 
that  of  1I«T  MaJ<'>t.\  should  |iro|ioNt>  a 
Kn|>|>h-ni<-ntary  aiticlo  <>nilio(lyin^  ar- 
ninut-nii-nt  which  should  hu  Hnhniittt'd 
to  the  .S-natf 40 1 

Has  iiifoniicil  Gi-noral  Schcnck  that  Her 
Majesty's  (iovcrnnicnt  olijrct  to  jiro- 
)K»Hiu>{  an  article,  and  itretcr  thu  intcr- 
cbaii};v  ol  iiote« VM't 

Uritish  Govcrnnicjit,  instead  of  jiropoHinjj 
new  .-irtich-  to  Treaty,  iircfcr  iMtcrchan^o 
of  iioteH.  and  arc  willinjj  to  t'nrthi'r 
nuxlily  their  note li)(l 

Have  stateil  to  Earl  Granville  decidedly,  as 
to  any  interchani;e  of  notes,  that  the 
Troidt'iit.  uithont  the  assent  of  the 
•S'liate.  will  not  j:o  hcyoiid  tiie  sii<;;fes- 
tioii  made  in  your  tth  j;raui  of  Ajuil  "J7. 
Karl  tiraiivillc  declines  to  have  coii- 
dncttnl  at  Washiii};ton  the  negotiation 
for  a  new  article  to  the  Treaty I0(! 

Karl  Gmnville  proposes  to  i-iodify  his 
amended  note,  as  telcj;rai)heil  on  the,  (ith 
instant l'.>7 

Further  coiiver>ation  with  (!ener;il 
!?chenck  respectin;;  proposed  article...   407 

Karl  t;ranville  informs  (Jeneral  Scln  nek 
that  a  Cahinet  ni -etinji  ^^  iH  he  held  this 
inoniiiig.  and  w  ishes  to  meet  him  atter- 
ward 4'.t!t 

Transmit.s  a  dranjjht  »)f  an  article  suh- 
niitteil  liy  the  13ritish  (Jovernnient,  to 
the  etlect  that  the  Trcsident  will  niako 
no  claim  on  tlie  part  of  the  United  States 
in  resjiect  of  iiuiirect  losses  to  the  Tri- 
bunal   cm 

Statement  communicated  hy  (Jenoral 
Sclienck  as  tu  the  iKisition  of  the  «iu(>s- 
tion  of  indirect  diinis .'')()0 

Inclos«-s  ctipies  of  two  notes  and  their 
accomjianiments  from  Karl  (iranvillc. 
The  tir>t.  dated  the  loth  instant,  re- 
capitulates, in  a  ;;eneral  way,  what  had 
recently  pa-s«il  Ketween  him  and  General 
Scheiick :  and  the  niemor:induni  which 
accouipaiiieil  it  relates  to  a  pro]>osed  ex- 
«-han<;e  of  iiot«-s  ujH)n  the  .subject  of  a 
.•iuiiideniental  arti«le.  The  second  is  a 
hrief  note  date«l  also  the  loth,  and  was 
acconipanietl  hy  the  tlrauj^ht  of  the  arti- 
cle referretl  to  in  his  lirst .^)0l 

Reply  to  :.Tr.  Fish's  disjiatch  of  IGth 
April  to  General  Schcnck,  with  a  review 
ot  th'»  arjrnments  and  corres|»ondene(!  of 
the  I'niteil  .States  in  snjijtort  of  its  claims 
aKain>t  tJreat  ISritain  for  inilirect  or 
national  l«»s.-4-j*  and  injuries  extending;' 
In-youd  the  direct  claims  of  Anier-can 
citizens  for  sjiecitic  h>s.ses  arising  from 
captures  by  the  "Alabama,''  "  Florida," 
••Shenandoah."  and  '•Gcorj;ia."  Why 
the  Biiti.sh  Hifrh  Commissioners  did  not 


' 


40.  (i 


CONTliNTW.  IX 

I'msiv 
47.  Karl  (Jriinv  illr  to  Sir  K. 'I'lioriitim         rcinonstiiili'  a^iiiiiist  tlic  jiU'M-iitntion  of 
-•  Coiitimicil.  May  i:{,  l-T'i.         these  claims.     The  iiatnie  oi  tiie  claiiiih 

rel'eiieil  to  in  thi'  'I'li'at.v  not  let't  to  iii- 
teleliec,  but  w  i  l<!  cliisely  ilelilied  and 
liniiteil.  Ar^iie>*  that  the  Ailiitraloi-.-» 
eannot  lie  j;<i\eine<l  in  any  ]iartii'nlar  l>y 
tiiat  iiortion  ot'  the  Treaty  tlelinin^  the 
l)o\ver.>4  of  tlu)  Claims  Commission •''>! 

1H.  Sir  K.  Thornton  to  l'",ini  (Iranvilie.  Conversation   with  Mr.  Fish.      Ills  state- 
May  i:t,  l'^7'-i.         meat    that    Her    .Majesty's  fJovernnu-nl 
wi.sh  toeompel  that  ot  the  I 'ni tell  States  to 
retraet.    Kavoralile  iminession  prodneed 
l>y  dran>;lit  article .M  J 

I'.t.  (ien.  Sehenek  tn  Me.  l^'ish Transmits  a  rojiy  of  a  jiaper  which  he  read 

May  II',  l!<7'i.  to  Kail  (iranvilie  on  tin*  loth,  heinj;  a 
summary  of  views  of  the  Inited  Statis 
on  the  indirect  claims,  liarl  (iranvilie 
replied  tliat  llei'  Majesty's  ( 'oveinnu'UI 
would  i>rol»al)ly  conclude  to  takt^  the 
initiativt!  and  propose  a  Treaty  article..   .M."> 

."().  Sir  K.  Thointoii  to  \.  iil  (iranvilie.   Intention  of  Mr.  Kisli  to  present  pajjcrs  io 

May  II,  l""/",'.         Con;;ress .'il'.' 

7)1.  Earl  GranviJlo  to  Sir  K.  Tliorntou  .  rnderstaiidiiiK  v  !'''    (Jeneral    Sehenek  as 

May  II,  l^7'2.         to  «liau;{litiiijj;  idi niic  note .VJil 

'>'2.  Same  to  same Corresiiondence  will   l»e  puldished  in  the 

May  1(),  1S7'>.        "(Jazette" .VJi) 

5;?.  Sir  E.  Thornton  to  I'arl  (iranvilie.   Doc'iniients  :  •  ii']»ti(i(.iislv    pnhlished    l>v 

May  17,  l"'7-i.         the  "New  lork  He-aM" .V,>1 

54.  Eail  '  "jinvillt}  to  Sir  K.Thornton  .  Approves  lanKnay;o  ub  ri')toited  in  No.  Xio, 

May  17,  1"'7-J.        p.  4^1 iVJ.' 

o.>.  Earl  (Jraiivillc  to  (ien.  Sehenek  ... .  If  Senate  a<ii\'e.  to  artich',  will  instruct  Sir 

Mav  17,  1"'72.        K.  Thornton  to  si-.;!!.  As  to  notes  to  Tii- 

hiinal .')-i-,' 

.')().  Gen.  Selienck  to  Earl    (iriins  ille..   As  to  si;;nin>;  ticatv  and  notes .V^J 

May  l.<,  I61)i. 

i>7.  Sir  E.Tboriitou  to  Earl  (iranvilie,    Convei>ation  with  Mr,  Fish  as  to  amend- 

ilay  tiO,  lf*7'i.         ments  made   hy  Committee  on   Foreign 

Kelations  in  draught  article 't'i',\ 

58.  Geu.  Scbeuck  to  Mr.  Fish Incloses  copies  of  correspoiidonce  between 

May  2"),  lH7'.i.  himself  and  Earl  Granville  in  re<j;ard  to 
jiroposed  identic  notes  to  he  communi- 
cated to  Arbitrators  at  (Jeiieva,  i^n  case 
of  new  Treaty  article  being  adopted .")'>4 

")9.  Mr.  Fish  to  Gen.  Sehenek Senate  will  amend  proposed  article.    Note 

May  'J.'),  1"'7'J.         to  Arbitrators  eannot  bt^  fixed  until  l.in- 

•rnai;((  of  article  is  aj;reeil  upon .VJ.'> 

<iO.  Earl  Granville  to  Sir  E.  Tliornton. .  Sends  draiijiht  of  preamble  to  the  Treatv  .Vi.'i 

May  ■■>:>,  l-T-i. 

01.  Mr.  Fish  to  Gen.  Scbeuck The  Semite  has  amended  the  proposed  art  i- 

(Telegram.)  May  'iii,  l*7".i.        clesulimittedby  tbelbitishtiovernment, 

and  advise  and  consent  to  its  adoption 
as  amended.  General  Sehenek  is  in- 
structed to  inform  Earl  Granville  that, 
ill  pursuance  of  this  acti'Hi  of  the  Sen- 
ate, the  I'resident  will  lu.gotiate  a  new 
article.  The  article,  an  propo.sed  by 
(Jreat  Ibitaiu  and  as  amended  by  the 
Senate,  is  iipi-  'uded '>'2'> 

62.  Sir  E.Tborntou  to  Earl  (>r,in\  ille..  Note  from  Mr.  Fish,  communicatinj;  reso- 

May  •J7.  l'-7'J.         liition  of  Senate  as  to  article ."ri7 


11! 


CONTENTS. 


r 


•i:j.  Mr.  Fish  to  (jei.  Sch 'iic'c 

May  •2'*,l8:-4 


<)-!.  (Jen.  Sclu'iick  to  Mr.  Fish 

(Telo^'ram.)  M;iy  -if*,  l-'T'i. 


()ii.  Mr.  Fish  to  (ien.  .SchiMick , 

(Toh'jATiim.)  May  -JH,  l.-^7-,'. 

<i().  Gen.  .Schfiick  to  Mr.  Fisli 

(T.;l.'^n'ain.)  May'^"*,  U72. 


<"i7.  Mr.  I'i.sli  to  Gen.  Sclicnck 

May  •>.-<,  le?-,'. 


Ct-^.  Sif  F. 'I'horiitoM  to  Farl  Gra-ivilh'.. 

May.i-i,  lH7-i. 

iy9.  Earl  Granville  to  Sir  F.  Thornton 

May  2-,  l.-7v>. 

70.  Mr.  Fisli  to  (ien.  Scheuck 

(,TL'li';4i'ani.)  Jlay  v!St,  l-'Tti. 


71.  Farl  (iranvillo  to  Sir  F.Thornton. 

May  '>[),  ie7-,>. 


I'llgO, 

Acknowledges  his  dispatch  of  14th,  and 
conniicnds  his  review  of  the  (|Ue8tion  of 
indirect  claims  as  read  by  him  to  Earl 
Granville  a  few  days  previous.  Reasons 
why  the  United  States  insist  on  retaining 
the  indirect  claims  before  the  tribunal.. ^r)'28 

States  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  con- 
sider the  Senate's  definition  of  principle 
which  both  Governments  are  ])repared 
to  adopt  for  the  futnre  too  vague,  and 
prefer  the  article  as  they  had  draughted 
it;  but  are  willing  to  accept  tlie  article 
as  the  Senate  proposes,  witli  the  substi- 
tution of  certain  words ^yiS 

United  States  declines  to  agrees  to  the  i»ro- 
])osed  altering  of  the  sni>plemeiitary 
article '.   .VJ9 

Transmits  text  of  note  from  Farl  (Jranville 
to  tlie  eltt'ct  that  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
nit'ut  are  not  able  to  Hnil  in  the  article 
as  amended  l)y  the  Scmate  any  means  or 
standard  of  interpretation,  and  are 
unabh^  to  signify  an  assent  to  a  form  of 
article  of  wiiicli  tliey  cannot  discover 
the  scope 5'J9 

Informing  him  that  he  told  Mr.  Thornton 
that  no  alteration  of  any  kind  of  the 
article  as  amended  by  the  Senate  could 
be  entertained,  and  that  it  was  useless 
to  discuss  the  proposed  note  to  the  Arbi- 
trators while  his  Goveriunentis  contem- 
plating any  clninge  in  the  article.  With 
regard  to  tlie  possible  failure  of  the 
Treaty  Mr.  Fish  remarkf?  that  this  coun- 
try will  stand  before  the  world  having 
done  all  tiiat  it  could  to  maintain  it 
and  the  civilizing  principle  which  it  es- 
tablished   .nao 

Mr.  Fish  will  not  agree  to  proposed  altera- 
tio  IS  in  article.  Any  further  reference 
to  the  Senate  would  be  of  no  avail tM 

Explanations  asked  from  General  Schonck 
as  to  juinciple  of  draught  article  recom- 
mended by  the  Senate .^:^2 

Tli:>  President  is  (>xtreniely  anxious  to 
preserve  the  Treaty,  and  unless  the  new 
article  be  signed  and  approved  by  the 
Senate  so  that  the  President's  ratification 
may  go  by  the  steamer  of  Saturday,  (1st 
proximo,)  it  cannot  reach  Londcm  in  time 
to  be  exchanged  and  presented  to  the 
Arbitrators  on  loth  June r>'.V.\ 

Communication  of  telegram  from  Mr.  Fish, 
declining  to  agree  to  alterations  in 
amended  article  .M54 


74.  G( 
■)S        7.-..  t 


*       77.  F 


72.  Gen.  Schonck 


ihiy  30  ,l-7->. 


73.  Gen.  Schenck  to  Mr.  Fish 

(Telegram.)  May  :50,  l-;-i. 


Memorandum  as  to  the  two  (iovernments 
respecting  the  principle  of  the  article. . . 

Earl  Granville  remarks  that  certain  por- 
tions of  Mr.  Fish's  statement,  as  con- 
tained in  liistclegianiof  tin,' day  previous, 
to  General  Schenck,  were  inexjilicable 
to  him.    General  Sciieiick  stated  that  the 


M 


CONTENTS. 


XI 


I'ligf. 
:h,  and 
ition  of 
;o  Earl 
(eaBons 
tainiii^ 
)inial..;528 

sntcoii- 
incipU' 
■epare«l 
110,  and 
ii<;hted 
article 
siibHti- 


52^* 


he  jiro- 
lentary 

•anville 
lovern- 
artiele 
eaus  or 
id  are 
form  of 
iscover 


lornton 
of  tlie 
e  could 
useless 
le  Arhi- 
onteui- 
.  With 
of  tlie 
iscoun- 
liaviug 
tail!  it 
it  es- 


5129 


altera- 
fereuce 


ruW 


clienck 
recoHi- 


)31 


ous  to 
lie  uew 
by  the 
icatiou 
iy,(lst 
u  time 
to  the 


-):V2 


r>3:i 


•.  Fish, 
HIS    iu 


imeiits 
icle...   : 

n  i»or- 
is  con- 
evious, 
licabK) 
uitthe 


.34 


ilM 


7a.  Gen.  Scheuck  to  Mr.  Fish— Cont'd.. 
(Telegram.)  May  'M,  187-.i. 


74.  Geti.  Schenck  to  Mr.  Fish 

May  :50,  1872. 


7.').  Gen.  Schenck  to  ;Mr.  Fish 

(Telegram.)  May  :}1,  1872. 


71).  Mr.  Fish  to  Gen.  Schenck 

(Telegram.)  May  :?1,  1872. 


77.  Earl  Granville  to  Sir  E.  Thornton. 
May  31,  1872. 

7.>^.  Sir  E.  Thornton  to  Earl  Granville. 
May  31,  1872. 

70.  Gen.  Schenck  to  Mr.  Fi.sh 

June  1,  1872. 

80.  Mr.  Fish  to  Gen.  Schenck 

(Telegram.)  June  1,  l."'72. 


81.  Gen.  Schenck  to  Mr.  Fish 

(Telegram.)  June  1,  1H72. 


Si.  Mr.  Fish  to  Gei'    Schenck 

(Telegram.)  June  2,  1872. 


Vane. 
article  as  proiiosed  by  Great  Britain  con- 
tines  itself  to  hypothetical  cases  which 
may  never  occur,  while  the  amendments 
of  the  Senate  apply  the  principle  to 
general  ca.ses .')3r» 

Incloses  copies  of  recent  correspondence 
with  Earl  Granville  already  telegraphed.  .')3.") 

Transmits  the  text  of  a  note  from  Earl 
Granville,  of  the  3(JtIi,  to  the  cH'ect  that 
Her  Majesty's  Government  have  stilted 
their  objisctions  to  tlie  wonls  jtroposed 
by  the  Senate,  but  do  not  pretend  that 
the  words  suggested  by  themselves 
were  incapable  of  iuijirovement.  Earl 
Granville  submits  to  (Jeneral  Schenck  a 
dnuight  article,  the  substance  «)f  wliicli 
is  that  the  President  will  not  make  any 
claim  on  the  jiart  of  the  l.'iiited  States 
before  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  in 
resiK'ct  of  the  several  ilasses  of  indiieirt 
losses  therein  euniuerated '> 40 

Informing  him  that  the  time  is  too  limited 
foi  the  .Senate  to  coiisidfi°  the  important 
changes  ])rojiosed  by  t'.ie  Hritish  (jloverii- 
meiit  to  the  terms  of  the  supplemental 
article.  Mr.  Fish  has  suggested  to  Mr. 
Thornton  that  they  sign  tlie  article  as 
recoiiiniended  by  the  .^^eiiate,  that  the 
Arbitration  may  proceed .">41 

Sending  draught  of  a  convention  for  ad- 
journing presentation  of  argument  to  the 
Trilmiial .")42 

Statement  of  Mr.  Fish  as  to  tlitlicuUy  of 
obtaining  sanction  of  Senate  to  conven- 
tion for  adjournment:  of  Arbitration r)43 

Transmits  copy  of  Earl  Granville's  note  of 
30tli  ultimo,  already  telegra\died.  [See 
No.  7r>] r)44 

The  adjournment  of  the  Tribunal  without 
amending  the  tifth  article  of  the  Treaty 
would  practically  amount  tc)  a  discon- 
tinuance, and  that  article  can  only  be 
ainendeil  by  a  new  Treaty .   .')4.''> 

Transmits  text  of  note  from  Earl  Granville 
in  reply  to  teltgraiu  fioni  Mr.  Fisii  to 
General  .^^cheiick  of  :!lst  f»f  May,  to  the 
eHect  that  Her  Maji-sty's  (iovernment 
hold  that  by  the  article  adopted  by  the 
Senate  cases  of  bad  faith  aiul  willful 
misconduct  are  brought  within  thescoite 
of  the  propo.sed  agreement,  which  deals 
with  ]tecmiiary  compensatifui.  Earl 
Granville  is  informed  by  Sir  E.Thornt(Ui 
that  Mr.  Fish  thinks  the  article  atlopted 
by  the  Senate  capable  of  improvement. 
JJriti.'di  Government  declines  to  sign  a 
Treaty  not  in  c«)nforniity  with  their 
views.  Are  willing  to  sign  a  Treaty  or 
concur  in  Joint  ai»plication  toTribunal  to 
atljourn  proceedings  of  Arbitration 'M 

Relative  to  eases  of  bad  faith  or  willful 
misconduct  held  by  (iieat  Itiitain  to  be 
within  tiie  scope  of  the  S  Miate  article..  r>4n 


XII 


CONTENTS. 


^•X  Gcu.  Sflieiiek  to  Mr.  Fish 

(Tel«;<?'a>''')  Juliet,  1872. 


H4.  Mr.  Fish  to  (ten.  .Sclx'iick 

(Ti'legrain.)  .Imif  '2,  IHT'J. 


^T).  (jcii.  .S(>lifiK;k  to  Mr.  Fiwli 

(Tcle<;raiii.)  June  ;!,  187'i. 


•<().  Mr.  Fish  to  (««mi.  Schoiick 

June  ;5,  187-i. 


87.  Mr.  Fisli  to  GcinMiil  Scheiick 

(Tfle<;raui.)  .Iiino  4, 187'^. 


8  .  McnioriiU'liuit 


Juw  1,  187'J. 


8'J.  (ion.  Schciifk  to  Mr.  Fi.sli 

(T»>l<'{;rani.)  Jiiiic.^,  187'2. 


yO.  Mr.  Fisli  toCtMicral  Sclioock 

(Tflt'f^rain.)  Jiiik:  f),  1,-7','. 


Page. 
lUitish  Gjvernnient  holds  that  after  the 
Arbitrators  have  received  the  ar}?uuieiit.s 
from  the  Aj^eiits  on  the  Ifith,  they  may 
adjourn  for  a  time '.  CAV 

United  States  Government  eoncnrs  in  opin- 
ion that  the  Arbitrators  have  power  to 
a<lJonrn.  If  ar{:;uments  on  both  sides  be 
]>nt  in  on  ir)th,  and  Great  IJritain  move 
for  adjournment,  this  Government  will 
concur .^)4ti 

]fer  Majesty's  Government  of  opinion  that 
Arbitrators  must  meet  on  l.'ith,  but  not 
m^eessary  for  Agents  to  present  ar<;u- 
nients  at  that  time ^^A'! 

Keply  to  Earl  (iranville's  instruction  to 
Sir  E.  Thornton,  of  the  Kith  ultimo.  Re- 
fers to  Earl  Itussell's  dispatch,  of  March 
•27,  18():?,  to  Lord  Lyons,  as  jiroof  that 
Mr.  Adams,  in  a  conversation  with  Earl 
Ktissell  therein  alluded  to,  referred  tt) 
the  "Alabama"  and  other  cruisers  as 
amoiif?  the  causes  tendinj^  to  produce 
the  exasperation  which  might  lead  to  u 
war  "with  a  view  to  aid  the  confederate 
cause  ;"  and  not  to  "  blockade-running." 
Shows  that  the  Ihitish  Government  must 
have  understotii'  that  the  United  States 
insisted  upon  indcinnity  for  indirect  in- 
juries .anterior  to  theuieetingof  the  Joint 
High  Commission,  and  that  their  present- 
ation was  not  a  surprise  to  the  British 
High  Commissioners;  also,  that  the 
Ihitish  (iovernmeut  entered  ui)on  the 
negotiation  of  the  Alabama  (|uestion 
with  a  knowledgeof  the  existence  of  the 
claims  for  indirect  losses.  Alludes  to 
ret  .it  speech  of  Sir  Statl'ord  Northcote, 
and  denies  that  promise  was  given  by 
the  American  High  Commissioners  that 
the  indirect  claims  were  not  to  be  put 
forward 547 

The  Government  of  tlm  T'nited  States  dif- 
fers from  opinion  of  Earl  Granville  with 
regard  to  ])resentation  of  arguments  on 
the  l.'jth.  If  an  adjournment  is  contem- 
l)lated  by  Great  IJritain  it  should  be  un- 
derstood that  this  (iovernmtjnt  caimot 
iiegotiateona  j>roposition  which  involves 
the  ide.'i  that  it  is  guilty  of  willful  viola- 
tion of  its  international  duties .').">.'> 

Statement  read  by  Lord  Granville  in  the 
House  of  Lords  as  to  the  jiublicatiou  of 
the  pai»ers  submitted  to  the  Senate 'mCi 

Opposition  members  in  Parliament  have 
fears  that  the  last  clause  of  the  article  is 
not  exi>licit  enough  to  previMit  indirect 
claims  from  beingagain  brought  forward,  'iiu 

This  Government  deals  with  the  IJritish 
Government,  not  with  ojiposition  mem- 
bers of  I'arliament.  If  the  liritish  Gov- 
ernment adopts  the  unworthy  Huspicion, 
«u'  suggests  that  this  (jlovernment  will 
n«)t  in  good  faith  act  upon  the  agrcenumt 
contained  therein,  all  further  negotiation 
must  cease  at  once.    Any  change  in  the 


!fi.  San 


it:!.  Mr. 


(' 


L)4. 


0.-). 


'Ji, 


Gen 
0 


Mr. 

('I 


Gen. 

('1 


97.  Oeii 


CONTENTS. 


XIII 


Page, 
fter  the 
tuiuoiits 
ley  may 
M! 


yO.  Mr.  Fish  to  Geu.  Scheiick— Cont'd . 
(Telegram.)  June  5,  1872. 


Dl.  Gen.  Sclienck  to  Mr.  Fish 

(Telegram.)  .Jiuie(i,  If'Ta. 


")4(; 


r)47 


547 


r.5(; 


t  have 
ii'lc  is 

ulirect 
ward. 

British 
moiii- 
l»  tiov- 
>ieion, 
t  will 
eiiieiit 
iatioii 
ill  the 


il'2.  Sauif  to  same 


.June  (!,  Ir7'2. 


>.i:!.  Mr.  Fish  to  Gen.  Sch.Mick 

(Telegram.)  .June  7,  li-7ii. 


'M.  Gen.  Sehenek  to  Mr.  Fish 

(Telegram.)  .June,  7,  l.'^7"^. 


0.").  Mr.  Fish  to  Gen.  Schenck 

(Telegram.)  June  H,  1872. 


9i.  Gen.  Sehenek  to  Mr.  Fish 

(Telegram.)  .Tu'ie?^,  1H72. 


'.t7.  Gen.  Sehenek  to  Mr.  Fish 

June  y,  1''72. 


article  as  agreed  to  l>y  the  Senate  would 
involve  discussion  and  lead  to  tlie  defeat 
of  the  Treaty 557 

The  British  Government  do  not  adopt  the 
fears  and  suspicions  of  others  with  regard 
to  tlie  last  clause  of  the  proposed  article, 
hut  defend  it  as  suttieicnt.  Transmits 
text  of  three  notes  from  Earl  Granville, 
iirst  of  which  relates  to  alterations  in  the 
draught  article  proposed  by  the  Senate: 
the  second  relates  to  the  necessity  of 
presenting  the  written  or  printed  argu- 
ments on  the  15th  of  .Ji.'ie;  and  the  third 
to  .Til  application  to  he  made  to  the  Ar- 
hitrators  to  adjourn  on  the  15th,  without 
the  presentation  of  the  argument  of 
either  Government,  or  to  conclude  a  new 
arrangement  with  the  United  States  for 
tlie  enlargement  of  the  time .">5'r^ 

Informed  Earl  Granville  th.it  it  was  uselcHs 
to  expect  tliat  any  change  can  he  made 
in  the  article  as  agreed  to  by  the  Senate. 
Incloses  copy  of  liis  note  to  Earl  Gran- 
ville on  the  subject •'>.'i'.t 

The  criticisiM  1)y  the  Ihitish  Government 
ou  tlie  language  of  the  Senate  amend- 
ment is  regarded  as  hyjiercritical  and 
strained.  The  Senate  and  peojile  of  the 
United  States  impatient  over  the  delays. 
This  Government  cannot  adopt  the  argu- 
ment of  Earl  (iranville  with  regard  to 
the  putting  in  of  arguments  by  both 
Governments  on  the  15th.  United 
States  think  tlie  Treaty  recpiires  it  to  be 
done 5iii' 

Transmits  substance  of  note  of  even  date 
from  Earl  (iranville  respecting  the  sub- 
stitution of  certain  words  In  tiie  Senate 
article  with  regard  to  indirect  losses 


Keference  to  any  ef)nv(rsation  with  Sir  I'.. 
Tiioriitou  unjustitied.  Have  '.iivariably 
told  him  that  it  was  useless  to  discuss 
the  amendments  to  tiie  proposed  article. 

Transmits  substance  of  not  ^  from  Earl 
Granville  of  even  date,  witli  sketch  f)f 
drauglit  note  in  jiresentiiig  summary. 
Earl  (iranville  says  th.-it  if  the  Treaty  is 
to  be  maintained  an  adjonrnmeiit  from 
the  15th  instant  has  become  absolutely 
necessary.  He  proposes  that  joint  appli- 
cation be  made  to  the  Tribunal  for  an 
adjournment  of  eight  months.  If  the 
Unite<l  States  concur  in  making  tlie  ai»- 
|)lication  the  agent  of  Her  Majesty's  (iov- 
ernment  will  deliver  to  the  arlutratcus 
the  summary  of  their  argument,  accom- 
panied by  a  declaration  that  it  is  the  in- 
tention of  his  Government  to  cancel  the 
appointment  of  the  British  Arbitrator, 
and  to  withdraw  from  the  Arbitration 
at  the  close  of  the  term  fixed  for  the  ad- 
journment, unless  the  difference  existing 
between  the  two  Governments  in  regard 
to  indirect  losses  shall  have  been  removed 

Transmit  copies  of  corresjirndence  w'tli 
Earl  Granville,  (already  telegraphed)... 


'.ni 


5(11 


501 


.'y)2 


XIV 


CONTENTS. 


98.  Mr.  Fish  to  fJeii.  Sclienck 

(Tele},nam.)  Jmit-  'J,  lb7'i. 


m».  Ml.  Fish  to  Mr.  Davis 

(Tek^j,Mani.)  Jiiiio  <.),  1H75>. 


lOi).  Mr.  Davis  to  Lord  Teiiteideii 

June  10,  IdT-i. 


101.  Gen.  Sch»'nci<  to  Mr.  Fish 

(Telegram.)  June  11,  1H7*J. 


102.  Gen.  Sc.henck  to  Mr.  Fish 

(Teh'giani.)  June  11, 1H7'2. 

103.  Gen.  Schonck  to  Mr.  Fish 

(Teh'giani.)  June  \2,  l!^7'i. 


104.  Gen.  Schonck  to  Mr.  Fish 

June  lU,  1872. 


10.^.  Mr.  Fish  to  Gen.  Sehenek 

(Tehigrani.)  June  1:5,  1872. 


ion.  Earl  Granville  to  Lord  Tenterden . 

June  12,  1872. 


I'ajic. 
Earl  Granville's  ))roposal  for  joint  applica- 
tion to  Tribunal  for  an  adjournment  for 
eight  nu)nths  cannot  be  accepted  by  this 
Government.  This  Oovornment  cannot 
be  a  party,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  an 
agreement  thereby  Great  Ihitain  is  to 
submit  her  argument  to  the  Tribunal 
conditionally.  Inform  Mr.  Davis  of  pres- 
ent condition  of  negotiation  between  the 
twoGovernmeuts T)!!!. 

Instruct  Agents  aiul  Counsel  to  be  in  Ge- 
neva on  ir)th.  If  nec(!ssary,  notify  Arbi- 
trators that  yon  will  be  there  to  deliver 
argument  aiul  proceed  according  to 
Treaty.  Should  such  notice  as  Granville's 
note  indicates  be  given,  a  decided  protest 
must  be  entered  against  any  (|ualiiied  or 
conditional  appearance  before  the  Tri- 
bunal    .')ti7 

Incloses  copy  of  letter  addressed  by  him  to 
each  of  the  Arbitrators  stating  that 
United  States  will  be  rei)r(!sented  on  loth 
instant,  pursuant  to  adjournment  and 
prepare<l  to  present  argument 5(1- 

Transmits  text  of  note  from  Earl  Granville 
to  ettect  that  Her  Majesty's  Government 
will  ask  for  an  adjournment  of  the  Tri- 
bunal for  such  a  period  as  will  enable 
them  to  make  a  supplementary  conven- 
tion with  the  United  States no 

Informing  Air.  Fish  that  he  has  aeknowl- 
edge<l  Earl  Granville's  note,  the  one 
;ibove  Veferred  to '■>(')'.* 

Ti  iinsmiis  ])ortion  of  a  note  from  Earl  Gran- 
ville of  nth  instant.  British  (Jovern- 
ment  believe  that  they  have  met  all  the 
objections  which  have  been  advanced  by 
United  States.  If  the  United  Stcates  be- 
lieve that  certain  cases  are  not  covered 
by  the  last  proposed  form  of  article,  and 
will  state  what  th'  cases  are,  there  is  no 
doubt  but  that  the  .:wo  Governments  can 
aglets  upon  a  form  of  words  which  will 
not  be  open  to  the  same  objection  as  that 
of  tlu*  Senate  amendment fjiil' 

Transmits  cojjy  of  correspondence  with 
I'oreign  OlHce,  also  reports  of  proceedings 
in  both  Houses  of  Farliament,  and  arti- 
cles from  leading  journals  showing  anxi- 
ety and  excitement  there  occasioned  by 
imminent  prospect  of  the  failure  of  the 
Arbitration  at  Geneva.  Inclosure  G  re- 
ferred to  iu  No.  72  is  a  recapitulation  of 
the  negotiations  which  have  passed  with 
respect  to  the  supplementary  Treaty  ar- 
ticle   .'■>7i) 

Telegraph  Mr.  Davis  that  if  arguments  are 
tiled  in  good  faith  without  oti'ensive  no- 
tice, we  will  assent  to  their  motion  for 
adjournmmit r)7>' 


107.  !•: 

108.  E 

' 

lOD.  L 

■i 

110.  M 

m.  M 


112.  M 


li:{.  Mr, 


114    Mr. 


( 


Aft  to  time  necessary  to  consider  a  supple- 
mentary convention  iu  case  the  Arbitra- 
tors inquire  how  long  an  adjourumeut  is 
rccjuested  iu  note  which  is  to  be  pre- 
sented    575 


115.  Air. 

(T 

IK).  Gen 

(T 


CONTENTS. 


XV 


applica- 
lu'iit  for 
I  by  this 
:  cannot 
y, to  an 
lin  is  to 
L'rihnnal 
i  of  pj-^s- 
veen  the 


PniiP. 




e  in  Oe-             ! 

fy  Aibi- 

)  (leliver 

(linjj    to 

anviUe's 

I  protest 

ill  lied  or 

the  Tri- 
i")(i7 

y  him  to 

i\<X    that             : 

l.miritli            ] 

ent  and 

r><i«     ; 

JraiiviHe 

erunieiit 

1  enable 

conven- 

;"))> 

K'knowl- 

the    one 

'.(ill    ; 

: 

irl  Gran-            i 

Ciovern-            ] 

t  all  the 

meed  by            i 

tates  be-            ; 

covered           A 

iele.  and           V 

L>rc  is  no           V 

ents  can            1 

lieh  will            1 

1  as  that            1 

r.ii'.i 

ce  with 

!eedinjjs 

nd  arti- 

ig  anxi- 

)ned  by 

i  of  the 

re  G  re- 

ation  of 

led  witli 
eaty  ar- 

, ."ti 

, 

unts  are 

iivo  no- 

tion for 

«-*- 

..•.....•  «>/•' 

siipple- 

Ubitra- 

incut  is 

be  pre- 

Two    ; 

107.  Earl  (Jran ville  to  Lord  Tenterden . 

Jnne  1:^,  lb7"^. 

108.  Earl  Granville  to  Lord  Tenterden . 

June  V2,  187'2. 

101).  Lord  Tenterden  to  Earl  Granville. 

June  J 4,  1872. 

110.  Mr.  Davis  to  Mr.  Fish 

(Telegram.)        June  1;"),  IH12. 

111.  Mr.  Fish  to  Mr.  Davis 

(Telegram.)         June  1'!',  187-2. 


70 


112.  Mr.  Davis  to  Mr. 

(Telegram.) 


Fish 

June  ll»,  1872. 


11:5.  Mr.  Davis  to  Mr.  Fish 

.June  111,  1H72. 


Sir  Koundell  Palmer  having  consented  to 
act  as  Her  Majesty's  Coiuisel,  nnist  be 
giiided  by  his  advice  in  all  proceedings. 

If  any  lircnmstances  sliould  occur  not  pro- 
vided for  while  endeavoring  tt)  obtain  an 
adjoumuient    liould  ask  instructions. ..  'ul\ 

Keports  ari'ival  at  fJeneva;  nu'cting  of  Tri- 
bunal (ixed  at  12  o'clock,  I'jth  instant..  ri7.'> 

Ourargniuent  presented.    Ihitish  Agent  in 
stru(  ted  to  withhold  Ibitisli  argument. 
Triljuual  adjourns  till  Monday "i77 

If  tiiere  is  to  be  sin  adjournment  let  it  be 
not  beyond  1st  of  January.  The  President 
sees  no  objection  to  such  adjournment  if 
asked  for  by  the  defendants .">77 

The  Tribunal  will,  this  morning.  mak(Mlec- 
laration  to  the  etl'ect  that  they  do  not 
l)ropos(!  to  express  or  imply  any  opinion 
upon  the  points  of  ditt'erence  between  the 
two  Governments,  but  it  seems  to  tliem 
obvious  that  the  proposed  adjourinnent. 
instead  of  settling  the  ([uestions  in  <lis- 
])ute,  will  have  a  tendency  to  make  the 
Arbitration  abortive;  they  therefore 
nmke  the  declaration  that  after  a  careful 
l>eiusal  of  all  that  has  been  urg«'d  by  the 
United  States  in  favor  of  indirect  claims, 
they  have  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that 
these  claims  do  not  constitute,  ui)ou  the 
principles  of  internatioinil  law  applicable 
to  such  cases,  good  f()nn<lation  for  an 
award  of  compensation,  and  should,  upon 
such  principle,  be  wholly  excluded  from 
the  consideration  of  the  Tribunal ."7 

Counsel  are  of  opinion  that  announcement 
this  day  made  by  the  Tribunal  nnist  be 
received  by  the  United  States  as  detei- 
minative  of  its  judgment  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  public  law  involved.  They  ad- 
vise that  claims  covered  by  this  ileclara- 
tion  be  -withdrawn  from  further  consid- 
eration bv  the  Tribunal 


1).^ 


114    Mr.  Fish  to  Gen.  Schenek Telegraph  Mr.  Davis  that  the  President  ac- 


(Telej^rani.)         June  22,  1872. 


cepts  the  declaration  of  the  Tribunal  as 
its  judgment  upon  a  (|uestion  of  ))ublic 
law  which  he  felt  that  the  interest  of 
both  (iovernments  r«M|nire«l  should  be 
decided.  United  States  had  no  desire  for 
a  ))ecnniary  award,  but  desired  an  ex- 
pression by  the  Tribunal  as  to  the  liabil- 
ity of  a  neutral  for  claims  of  that  char- 
acter. The  Pre-ident  consequently  with- 
draws fiom  the  consideration  of  the  Tri- 
bunal the  three  classes  of  indirect  claims 
before  referred  to r)78 

Counsel  concur  in  form  of  connnunication 
to  the  Tribunal  of  the  action  of  our  Gov- 
ernment    57',» 

IK).  Gen.  Schenek  to  Mr.  Fish Mr.  Davis  telegraphs  General  Schenek  that 

(Telegram.)  June  20,  1872.        he  informed  the  Arbitrators  that  tiieir 

declaration  witii  regard  to  the  three 
classes  of  indirect  claims  is  accepted  by 
the  President.  Tribunal  tln-n  ailjourned 
till  the  nth  to  enable  the  IJritish  Agent 
to  comnmnicate  witli  his  (tovernmeut..  579 


115. 


Mr.  Davis  to  Mr. 
(Telegram.) 


Fish 

June  25, 


1872. 


xvr 


CONTENTS. 


117.  (l.'ii.  Scheiick  to  Mr.  Fish 

(  IV'lcf^iaiii.)  .Jurio'i/,  Ifili. 


lis.  Mr.  Divvis  to  Mr.  Fisli ,'.. 

(Telcgriini.)  Jiiiii; 'iT,  I'^Tri. 

111*.  Earl  Granvillo  to  Lord  Teiitcrtlcn . 

July  1, 1'ili. 


I'JU.  Gen.  Sclienck  to  Mr.  Fish , 

Aug.  1-i,  187-2. 


IJl.  Mr.  Fish  to  (J.-n.  Sch.'iick 

All-.  :il,  1S7-J. 


1-22.  Sir  K.  Thornton  to  Mr.  Fish 

Oct.  17,  Ih7-,'. 


I'i;;.  .Mr.  Fish  to  Sir  E.Thornton 

Oct.  -i-i,  IS7-2. 


l"il.  (ion.  Sch«  nek  to  Mr.  Fish 

Feb.  7,  l'-'7:5. 


V2't.  Mr.  Fish  to  Oeii.  SchtMick 

Feb.  -iO,  1873. 


l-if).  (Jcii.  Scheuck  to  Mr.  Fish 

March  0,  187:$. 


Pago. 
Mr.  Davis  tt;h'>?rai>Iis  Geuoral  Sclienck  that 
in  vit'w  of  tilt!  fact  that  the  United 
States  withdraws  her  chiiin  for  indirect 
h)sses,  tlie  British  Agent  will  re(|ue8t 
leave  to  withdraw  the  application  of  his 
Government  for  an  adjonrnment TiHO 

Ihitish  argument  filed.  Arbitration  goes 
on 580 

Her  Majesty's  ai>proval  of  his  proceedings 
at  (Jeiieva.  Valuable  assistance  rendered 
l>y  Sir  R.  I'alnier.  Conciliatory  spirit 
shown  by  Amei'ican  colleagues 581 

Fcu'wards  co])ie8  of  Queen's  speech.  Her 
Majesty  made  to  say  that  the  declaration 
of  the  Arbitrators  on  subject  of  claims 
for  indirect  losses,  is  entirely  consistent 
with  views  announced  by  her  at  opening 
of  the  session.  Ground  then  taken  wag 
that  United  States  had  put  forward  cer- 
tain claims  whicii  Her  Majesty's  (Jovern- 
nient  held  not  to  be  within  scope  of  the 
Treaty 581 

Acknowledges  above  disjiatch.  In  the  cor- 
respondence which  ensiuid  the  United 
States  contiMuleil  in  ettect  that  all  the 
claims  presented  were  within  the  )>roper 
jurisdiction  of  the  Tribunal,  and  that 
they  could  be  disposed  of  only  on  judg- 
ment or  award  of  the  Arbitrators.  The 
action  of  the  Tribunal  looks  very  much 
like  taking  cognizance  of  them 58'i 

Her  Majesty's  acknowledgments  for  care 
and  attention  which  ilr.  Adams  1»e- 
stowed  on  inii>ortant  matters  with  which 
he  was  called  ni)on  to  deal,  and  high  ap- 
l>reciatiou  of  his  ability  and  indefatiga- 
ble industry 584 

Acknowledges  above.  Presideut  gratified 
with  the  intelligence  of  Her  Majesty's 
ajipreciatiou  of  the  manner  in  which  Mr. 
Adams  has  discharged  the  high  duties 
intrusted  to  him 58') 

Parliamentary  proceedings.  Mr.  Glad- 
stone's statement  that  the  expression  of 
regret  by  Great  Britain  contained  in  the 
Treaty  of  Washington  Avas  not  iu  the 
nature  of  a  condition  precedent ■ 585 

Acknowledges  above.  Facts  will  scarce 
sustain  ilr.  Gladstone's  denial.  History 
of  tlu!  informal  negotiations  which  pre- 
ceded the  appointment  of  the  Joint  High 
Commission 580 

Ivcfers  to  above  and  expresses  satisfactiou 
that  authentic  record  of  facts  attending 
expression  of  regret  by  Great  Britaiu 
contained  in  the  Treaty  has  been  made. 
His  own  understanding  as  to  the  mat- 
ter    587 


*: 


No. 


1 
1 


CONTENTS. 


XVII 


Page. 
k  that 
Inited 
direct 
i'(lueHt 
of  his 


')80 


II    {JOOH 

cdiiif^H 

luhued 

spirit 

I.  Her 
nation 
claims 
sistfiit 
ipeniii^? 
en  wag 
ird  cer- 
Jovern- 
>  of  the 

the  cor- 
I'nited 
all  the 
(  proper 
\d  that 
n  judK- 
is.  The 
ry  much 


580 


5H1 


nsi 


8TATEMKNT  OF  SIB  STAFFORD  NORTHCOTE   AT    EXETER,   IN   RELATION   TO   AN   ALLBOBD 
.     PROMISE  OF  EXCLUSION  OF  THE  INDIRECT  CLAIMS. 

No.  1.  A  passage  from  a  speech  of  Sir  Staiford  Northcote,  at  Exeter,  May  17, 1872, 

as  published  in  the  Pall  Mali  Gazette  of  May  18 593 

2.  Extract  from  the  London  Times  of  May  20,  1872,  giving  a  report  of  the 

speech  of  Sir  Stafford  Northcote,  at  Exeter 593 

3.  Extract  from  an  instruction  of  Mr.  Fish  to  General  Schenck,  June  3, 1872..  596 

4.  Copy  of  a  letter  of  Mr.  Fish  addressed  to  each  of  the  American  commis- 

sioners   597 

5.  Letter  of  Judge  Hoar,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Fish's  letter  of  June  3 598 

6.  Letter  of  Judge  Nelson,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Fish's  letter  of  June  3 598 

'       7.  Letter  of  General  Schenck,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Fish's  letter  of  June  3 599 

8.  Letter  of  Judge  Williams,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Fish's  letter  of  June  3 600 

9.  Extract  from  the  36th  Protocol  of  the  Conferences  of  the  Joint  High  Com- 

mission   601 

10.  Extract  from  a  speech  of  the  Marquis  of  Ripon,  in  the  House  of  Lords,  June 

4, 1872,  taken  from  the  London  Times  of  June  5, 1872 603 

11.  Letter  of  Sir  Stafford  Northcote  to  Earl  Derby,  June  5,  1872,  read  in  tbe 

House  of  Lords,  June  6,  taken  from  the  report  of  the  proceedings  in  the 
House  of  Lords,  in  the  London  Times  of  June? 603 

II  A— n 


584 


or  care 

ins    he- 

whioli 

i;h  iip- 

tatiga- 

>>>>>•      * 

ratified 

ajesty's 

ich  Mr. 

duties 

Glad- 
^sion  of 
i  in  the 

iu  the 


384 


58.- 


scarce 
History 
Jich  pre- 
lit  High 

ifactiou 

pending 

Jritain 

made. 

le  mat- 


5fti 


587 


CONTINUATION  OF  THE  PAPERS  ACCOMPANYlNiJ  THE  COUNTER 
CASE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


t;UrPI>EMENTAL  MEMORANDA  AND  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE 
TOUCHING  NEUTRALITY  LAWS  AND  THE  EXECUTION  THEREOF  IN 
COUNTRIES  OTHER   THAN  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN. 


[109] 


*1.— FKANCE. 


No.  1.  Extracts  from  the  Code  Penal  of  France,  with  coniineiitaries. 

No.  2.  The  Annan  contracts. 

No.  3.  Case  of  the  liappahannock. 

No.  1.— THE  CODE  PfiNAL  AND  COMMENTARIES. 

A. — C.  P.  Art.  84.  Quiconque  aura,  par  ties  actions  hostiles  nonap- 
l)ronv^e8  par  le  gouvernement,  expose  I'etat  si  une  declaration  de  guerre, 
sera  puni  du  bani.'issenient;  et,  si  la  guerre  s'eu  est  suivie,  de  la  depor- 
tation. 

Art.  85.  Quiconcpie  aura,  pardesacte.^nn"-'^' 


l^-vtM^rfc*-*^ 


ERRATUM. 

At  imgc  r,.-^?,  line  7,  iusteacl  ol'  •'  to,  aud,"  ica.l 


ART.  85.  Whoever  shall  have  exposed  the  French  to  reprisals  by  acts 
not  approved  by  the  government  shall  be  punished  by  banishment. 


[200]  *B. 

DXL,LOZ,  jurisprudence  generalCf  toifle  XIV,  p.  531. 

Se(!T.  5.  Actes  qui  peuvent  exjyoser  Vetat  a  tine  declaration  de  guerre  et  les 

citoyens  i  des  represailles. 

07.  Ici  il  ne  .s'agit  plus  de  trahisou;  il  s'agit  de  simples  faits  qui 
revi'lent  moins  la  perversity  ou  l'immoralit6  de  leur  auteur  que  son  im- 
prudence, sa  temerit6  ou  sa  16gerete.  Ce  sont  des  actes  qui,  dans  les 
circonstances  ou  ils  sont  intervenus,  peuvent  exposer  Pdtat  ^^  une  de- 
claration de  guerre  ou  les  citoyens  f\  des  represailles.  Ils  font  I'objet 
de  deux  articles :  "Quiconque,"  dit  I'art.  84,  c.  pen.,  "aura,  par  des  ac- 
tions hostiles  nonapprouvees  par  le  gouvernement,  expose  I'etat  ^  une 
declaration  de  guerre,  sera  puni  du  bannissement ;  et,  si  la  guerre  s'en 
est  suivie,  de  la  deportation."  Ne  comprenant  pas  comment  le  fait 
d'un  simple  particulier  pourrait  avoir  assez  de  gravite  pour  exposer 
I'etat  a  une  declaration  de  guerre,  Carnot  a  pense  que  cet  article  ne 
pourrait  s'appliquer  qu'jl  des  agents  du  gouvernement.  "  II  n'y  a,"  dit- 
il,  "  que  les  agents  du  gouvernement  dont  les  actions  hostiles  puissent 
produire  I'effet  d'ali timer  la  guerre  entre  la  France  et  les  nations  Citrau- 
1  A — 11 


CONTINUATION  OF  THK  i»APKUS  ACCOMPANYINI^,  THK  COUNTER 
CASK  OF  THE  UxMTED  STATES. 


fciUPPI.EMKNTAL  MEIMORANDA  AND  DIPLOMATIO  CORRESPONDENCE 
TOUCIIINd  NEUTRALITY  LAWS  AND  THE  EXECUTION  THEREOF  IN 
COUNTRIES  OTUER   THAN   THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  GREAT  HRITA.IN. 

[109]  ♦I.— FRANCE. 

No.  1.  Extracts  from  the  Code  Penal  of  France,  with  coinruentarics. 

No.  2.  The  Armaii  contracts. 

No.  3.  Case  of  the  Itappahannock. 

No.  1.— THE  CODE  PfiNAL  AND  COMMENTARIES. 

A. — C.  P.  Art.  84.  Qiiiconque  aura,  par  des  actions  hostiles  non-ap- 
]»rouv6e8  par  le  gouvernetnent,  expose  I'etat  h  une  declaration  de  guerre, 
sera  puni  du  bauuissenient;  et,  si  la  guerre  s'en  est  suivie,  de  Ui  depor- 
tation. 

Art.  85.  Quii^onque  aura,  ))ar  des  actes  nonapprouves  par  le  gouverne- 
nient,  expose  des  Fran^ais  tl  eprouver  des  repfusailles,  sera  puni  du 
bauuissenient. 

A.' — [Translation.] — Art.  84.  Whoever  shall  have  exposed  the  state 
to  a  declaration  of  war  by  hostile  acts  not  approved  by  the  government 
shall  be  punished  by  banishment,  and,  if  war  should  follow,  by  deporta- 
tion. 

Art.  85.  Whoever  shall  hjive  exposed  the  Fren(!h  to  reprisals  by  acts 
not  approved  by  the  government  shall  be  punished  by  banishment. 


[200]  *B. 

Da.i,loz,  jurispnidence  g<m(?ralCy  Untie  XIV,  p.  531. 

Sect.  5.  Actes  qui  peuvent  exposer  Vetat  a  une  declaration  o   juerre  et  les 

citoyens  it  des  represaiUes, 

67.  Ici  il  ne  s'agit  plus  de  trahison;  il  s'agit  de  simples  faits  qui 
revelent  moins  la  perversite  on  I'immoralite  de  leur  auteur  que  son  im- 
prudence, sa  temerit6  ou  sa  legerete.  Ce  sojit  des  actes  qui,  daus  les 
circoustances  oil  ils  sont  intervenus,  peuvent  exposer  Petat  ik  una  de- 
claration de  guerre  ou  les  citoyens  k  des  represaiUes.  lis  font  I'objet 
de  deux  articles  :  "Quiconque,"  dit  I'art.  84,  c.  pen.,  "aura,  par  des  ac- 
tions hostiles  non-approuvees  par  le  gouvernement,  expose  i'etat  si  une 
declaration  de  guerre,  sera  puni  du  baunissement;  et,  si  la  guerre  s'en 
est  suivie,  de  la  deportation."  Ne  comprenant  pas  comment  le  fait 
d'un  simple  i)articulier  pourrait  avoir  assez  de  gravite  pour  exposer 
!  etat  a  une  declaration  de  guerre,  Carnot  a  pense  que  cet  article  ne 
pourrait  s'aj)pli(iuer  qu'a  des  agents  du  gouvernement.  "  II  n'y  a,"  dit- 
il,  "  que  les  agents  du  gouvernement  dont  les  actions  hostiles  puissent 
produire  I'effet  d'allumer  la  guerre  entre  la  France  et  les  nations  d'tran- 
1  A— n 


2  TRRATY    OF    WASIflN'OTON' PAPKKS    ACCOMPANYING 

(201 1    jj<>ro8;  cc  qui  n'snlte,  trailU'iir*,  •iriipIic'it«Miient  «los  dispositions 

de  I'art.  W"),  <|iii  s'oct'UiK?  <riiiie  manin-e  spcciale  dcs  simplos  par- 
ticuliers."  Le  Tiu'Mne  autour  iiiv«M|uo  a  I'appiii  <lo  s«ui  opinion  los  tcrnios 
do  I'art.  2  du  code  de  1701,  2'  jiart.,  sect.  1,  dont  la  disposition  (Hait,  on 
eftet,  cMUK^Mio,  dans  ce  s«'ns.  Mais  anjoiird'hiii,  il  nVn  pout  «"'tr<i  ainsi ;  et 
devant  la  p'lM'ralito  <lii  mot  qiticontiH*,,  dont  st*  s«'rt  I'art.  S4,  ancnnc  in 
certitude  no  jjcnt  exister  siir  «e  point.  (V.  le  n'<piis.  de  M.  Dupin  dans 
I'aftairo  Jau^'e,  No.  2.S.) 

OS.  Pour  eonstituer  le  crime  prevn  par  I'art.  H4,  »ine  i)remi«'ro  condi- 
tion est  neeessaire,  cVst  (pie  les  actions  inciiminces  soicnt  des  actions 
hosiileH.  j\Iais  «pic  doit  on  entendre  par  ce  mot  f  La  ioi  no  I'a  pas  dit, 
et  ne  pouvait  le  dire ;  car  ce  caractere  lie  depend  pas  nioins  de  la  nature 
des  rapports  (pii  existent  entre  le-*  ileiix  nations  que  d»i  la  nature  des 
circonstan<;es  elles  niemes.  Le  fait  le  plus  {iiave,  le  plus  important, 
passera  inapcicu  et  n^iiiicneia  aiicun  ctmilit,  si  la  nation  an  |>rejudicc 
4le  laqueile  il  a  en  lieu  est  li«'«*  par  «les  rapinuts  d*iiitiuilteavec  la  l''ranc<', 
on  si  elh}  n'est  i)as  en  etat  de  soutenir  la  guerre.  T.indis  «pie  le  fait  le 
plus  iiisijiniliant,  I'otlense  la  plus  le^ere,  amenera  une  conllafiiation  si 

cette  nation  n'atteiid  qu'iiii  pn'-texte  jxmu-  «'clat<'r.  ("est  tlonc 
[202)    avec,  sa<j;esse  (pie  la  Ioi  a  lefu.M'  *de  definir  les  actes  liostiles  dont 

il  s'af;it,  se  bornant  a  iiicriminer  Iciir  resultat.  a  savoir  d'exposer 
IV'tat  a  une  declaration  de  ^jiierre.  Kt  il  a  «'f<*Ju<r<',  par  ai)i»lication  do 
cet  article,  <iue  d*'s  einprunts  n('';^ocir's  au  ihuii  d'un  prince  en  guerre 
avec  une  nation  alliee  out  pii  etre  re;;anl«*s  comiiie  ne  constituant  pas 
des  actions  hostiles  de  nature  a  exposer  hi  France  a  une  declaration  de 
guerre,  sans  (pu;  cette  appreciation  toiu'w*  s»mis  la  censure  de  la  cour  de 
cassation,  (cririi.  recj.,  2.S  nov.  l.S.>4,  atl'.  .lau.t^e.  No.  2S.) 

GO.  Une  seconde  condition  cotistitutive  ilu  crime  est  que  les  actes 
n'aient  pas  etc  approuves  par  lb  •^ouveriienient.  IJeniarcpions  (pie  la  Ioi 
ne  dit  pas  autoriser,  parce  que  rautoris;iti(Ui.  t'taiit  antcrienre  an  fait, 
le  rend  legitime  et  licite  sans  «pie,  dans  aucnii  cas,  il  puisse  donner  lieu 
a  des  poursuites;  tandis  que  rappiolKitioii.  etant  postcrieure,  ne  cliango 
pas  ie  caractere  du  fait,  mais  en  a^sin**  seulement  riini)unit(''.  Si  le 
gouvernement  apiuouve  les  actes  Ii«»>ti!es,  il  se  les  ajjproprie,  il  en 
assume  la  responsabilit*'  et  les  conseiiuentes.  et  il  met  I'agent  a  convert: 
de  toutes  poursuites. 

70.  Une  troisieme  condition  du  crime,  c'est  que  les  actions  hostiles 

aient  expose  I'elat  a  une  (h-vlnratifm  tie  (juerre.  l{emar«pu)ns  (pic 
[203]    la  Ioi  ne  dit  pas  j\  des  hostilitr^.  mais  a  une  declaration  *de  guerre, 

(V.  dim.  iiMj.,  28  novembie  1.SJ4,  alT.  Jauge,  No.  28.)  ]MM.  (Mian- 
veau  et  ]Ieli(',  t.  2,  p.  01,  peusent  que  le  code  aiirait  mieux  fait  de 
n'exiger  que  des  actes  hostiles.  "Car,"  disent-ils,  '*les  agressions  (pii  so 
mauifestent  Ic!  plus  souvent,  soit  sur  les  frontieres  entre  les  habitants 
riverains,  soit  en  mer  sur  des  navires  isoles,  peuvent  provo(pier  des 
actes  de  la  meine  nature,  mais  non  une  declaration  de  guerre.  Dans 
I'etat  politique  de  I'Europe,  il  est  ditlieile  que  le  fait  isole  d'un  simple 
citoyen,  et  meme  d'un  foncti«uinaire  public,  puisse  allumer  la  guerre 
entre  deux  nations.  Une  (h'claration  de  guerre  irintervient  pas  sans 
que  I'etat  oftense  ait  demand*'-  des  explications:  et  des  que  I'agression  a 
ete  commise  a  I'insu  du  gouvernemeiit  auquel  appartient  I'agent,  d»'s 
que  le  gouvernemeiit  la  divsavoiie  liautement,  il  est  improbable  que  la 
guerre  puisse  jamais  en  etre  la  consw|nence.''  Mais  ne  peut-il  pas 
arriver  que  le  gouvernemeiit  oft'ens*'  ne  veuille  pas  se  contenter  de  ce 
desaveu ;  qu'exagerant  I'otlense,  il  exagere  aussi  ses  pretentious ;  qu'il 
exige  une  reparation  humiliante  |K>nr  la  Fnince,  et  des  satisfactions 
auxquelles  celleci  ne  puisse  souscrire ? 


82, 
1'- 


roiiNTF.R  CASK  or   rni.:  initki)  statks. 


8 


71.  liii   «'<iiiiitnssi(Mi  «lii   roips   l«''};;i.slatil'  avait    pnuMJsc  (st'-aiu't'  tin  !» 

Janvit'i'  ISIO)  dc  inoiioinu'r  la  pciim  «!«'  inort  an  li«'n  <lt>  ('••llo  <h'  la 
[UOIJ    dt'portaiioii  pour  U'  *vha  im  Ics  actcs  liostilos  aiiruit'iit  «'U'!  sniviH 

«U>  la  ^iKMTc,  lit  ]H'iti(>  *!«)  lii  (h'portatioii  nVtaiit  plus  siiflisaiito 
l()rs(prmi  pan-il  Hcaii  a  suivi  le  rriiiH*.  \a\  i'onst'il  dN'tat  ivpoiissa.  vvtUt 
proposition  jtar  lo  motif  que  Tart.  SI  siipjxis*'  (pie  Tajjoiiit  n'a  |)as 
calcuh*  h's  coiisi'mphmu'cs  do  sa  cumdnitc,  vt  (pii>,  s'll  cii  otait  autrcniciit, 
R'il  y  avait  «mi  tics  intolli^cMUJcs  ot  iiiaini'uvr«'s,  lo  I'ait  tonilu'iait  sons 
Tapplication  <los  artic^les  int'cochMits.  C«'tto  u'ponso  rst-cUo  exactci  (rnn*-! 
inanitno  absohu'  i  MM.  ('lianvcan  «'t  lldit',  t.  2,  p.  (! I,  uv  !<•  p«'ns(Mit  pas. 
''  Sans  donto,"  disentils,  "si  Ics  ai^tions  hostih's  «''t,ii»Mit  U^  iVnit  d'intcl- 
lifjences  entn'tcnnos  avoc  los  pnissaniu's  rtianporcs,  U's  art.  7(i  ponr- 
raiont  I'tre,  suivant  Ics  cas,  applicablcs;  inais  si  ccs  actions,  qnoiipic 
connniscs  avcc  pr(''nic«litation,  n'avaicntctc  <!oiiccrt«'cs  avcc  saicnn  aj^cnt 
ctraiijfcr,  jncccdi-cs  d'aniMin  acto  prcparatoirc  dc  la  traliison,  dies  n«^ 
lontrciaicMit  dans  ancnnc  antrc  ilisposition  dc  la  nicinc  scc^tion." 

715.  liors  dc  la  ivvisicni  diicodc,  il  t'nt,  an  c,«»ntrain>,  propose'^  a  hi  (thani- 
bro  des  d<''putcs,  par  un  do  scs  niciidncs,  de  substitncr  la  detention 
tenij)oraiic  a  la  (leportation.  1/antcnrJnstiliait  (M-tte  proposition  snr  h^ 
mot  if  (pic  ce  ci  ime,  si   tontcfois  il  est  possililc,  est  inspire,  do  moins  dans 

la  jdnpait  des  cinionstaiujcs,  par  des  sentiments  ilc  bravonre,  dc 
jL'OoJ    yeiK'rositc  m(''mc,  irn'lh'cliis  *sans  donte,  mais  (pii  nc  picsentent 

pas  dans  la  culi»abilit('!  cc  caract»'re  d(^  uraviti'  sijiiiab''  dans  Tart. 
8L'.  "La  cliambre  ne  croit  pas  di^voir  adoi)ter  cet  amcndcmcnt,  sur 
I'obscrvation  dii  rapi)oitcnr  dc  la  loi,  »pic,  si  on  Jiiji'c  cc  fait  par  rinieii- 
tioii,  il  nVst  i>as  d'intcntioii  plus  conpablo  qiu;  cellc  (pii,  nc  tenant 
aucun  comi)tc  des  plus  ^ra\'es  inti'iets  do  la  Franco,  Texpose  aiix 
chances  et  anx  mallicins  <l(>  la  j;iierre."  Par  s-  itc-  la  peine  dc  la  d(''[>or- 
tatioii  fnt  maintenue.  * 

All  surplus,  il  importc  do  rcinanpier  (pie  (!0  no  sont  i»as  les  actcs  lios- 
tilcs,  les  violences  on  Ics  d(''pr(''dations  (pio  la  loi  i>unit,  mais  sculcment 
le  fait  favoir,  par  ces  actcs,  expos*';  IV'tat  a  line  declaration  de  j-uerrc, 
(V.  crini.  re(|.,  IS  Jiiin  1S2-1,  atf.  JJerpin,  vo.  compct.  crim..  No.  112.) 

73.  J/art.  So  i>ortc:  "Qiii(.'oii(iuo  aura,  par  des  actcs  non-ai)protiv(''s 
par  lo  souvcrnomcnt,  expost*  des  Fraia^'ais  a  ('[nouver  des  rcprc'saillcs, 
sera  puni  du  baiinisscment.  ltcmar(pioiis,  d'abord,  (pic  la  loi  nc  dit  \>as 
quiconquo  aura  atthr  des  rcpresailles,  maiscpiicoiMiuo  aura  expose'' :  d'oii 
il  suit  qu'il  impui.e  ])cn,  pour  rincrirnination,  (pic  les  rcpr(''saillcs 
ii'aient  jias  eii  lieu  ;  qu'il  sutlit  (pio  des  Francais  aieiit  «''t(i  ox[)oses  a  cii 

('prouvcr.  (Juclle  doit  ('^tro  la  nature  des  actcs  dont  parlo  cet 
[20GJ    artich?  capablcs  dexposer  les  Fraii*(;ais  a  des  rcpiesaiiles  i     ( 'ola 

no  ]»ent  s'entemlro  (juo  iCoutruiicH  et  ro/cv  (/c  /Wy7  commis  cuvers 
(les  sujets  d'niio  nation  ('trangcre,  et  non  do  simples  injiurs,  aiiisi  (pio  lo 
portait,  d'aillenrs,  lo  projot  jirimitif,  (Conf.  MM.  (.'arnot  sur  lo  dit  article, 
Chauveau  et  Ib'lic,  t.  2,  p.  (Jl.) 

74.  Est-il  iKiccssairo  quo  les  rei)r(''sailles  aicnt  vUt  commamlns  par  Ic 
ijoiivcrnement  otra;;ger?  MjM.  Chauveau  et  Ib^lic',  t.  2,  p.  <>2,  so  ]»ro- 
non(?ent  pour  I'aflinnative.  II  nous  scmblo  impossible  d'admcttre  cetto 
restriction.    Quand  la  loi  s(^   borno   a  dire  :   Quicoinio  aura 

expose  des  Francais  (t  eprouver  des  ropicsailles  sera  puni  .  .  .  etc., 
il  n'est  (hidemment  pas  permis  do  rinterpivter  conime  si  olio  disait : 
Quiconque  aura  .  .  .  provoqn(i  contre  des  Frau^ais  des  repr(jsaille8  do  la 
part  iVuti  (joxirernement  etrnnger,  etc.  Ainsi  done,  nous  pensons  (^ue  si, 
par  exemple,  des  Anglais  ,  aient  re^u  de  la  part  de  Fran^ais,  dos  ou- 
trages de  telle  nature  (ju'ils  /ussent  provoquer  des  repriisailles  contro  les 
Frau^ais  qui  se  trouvent  en  Angleterre,  les  auteurs  de  coa  outrages 


rr 


TRKATY    OF    WASIUNGTON PAPERS    ACCOMPANYING 


devraient  etre  punis,  coiiformemeut  it  Part.  8.>,  sans  qu'il  fut  necessaire 
que   los  ropn'jsailles  eussent  6tc  commaiidc'es  par  le  gouverneraent 

anglais.  Tel  OvSt  aussi  I'avis  dcM.  Haus.  Et  il  a  ete  juge,  tl  cet 
[!i07 1    ogard,  que  les  violences  exercces  par  des  Fraii(;ai8  en  vers  *uii  post<i 

de  la  douane  etrangere  a  I'ettet  d'enlever  des  objets  introduits 
par  contrebande  sur  le  tef ritorie  etranger,  et  saisis  par  les  preposes  i\la 
douane,  constituent  des  actions  hostiles,  dans  le  sens  de  I'art.  84,  c.  p6n., 
ou  tout  an  moins  des  actes  qui  exposeraieut  des  Fran^ais  si  eprouver 
des  rei>resailles  dans  le  sens  de  Tart.  85  du  lueine  code,  (Grenoble,  25 
avril  1831.) 

(Min.,  pub.,  c.  Cayen,  etc.)  La  Cour  : — Attendu  (pi'il  rt'sulte  de  la  pro- 
cedure (jue,  le  1'5  ievrier  18,'il,  a  ouze  lieures  du  soir,  un  attroupenient 
de  quarante  a  ciiKpiante  personnes,  habitant  sur  le  territoire  fran(;ais, 
s'est  porte  sur  le  territoire  sarde,  on  il  a  attaque  le  poste  de  la  douane 
sarde  et  s'est  livre  a  divers  actes  de  violence  envers  les  preposes  ;  que 
le  poste  a  etc  envahi  et  le  corpsde-garde  desarnie  ;  qu'un  coup  de  cara- 
bine a  ete  tire  sur  I'un  de.s  preposes ;  que  les  autres  amies  ont  ete  re- 
tenues  et  deciuirgV'es ;  que  le&  portes  d'une  remise  et  d'une  ecurie  ont 
ete  brisees,  a  I'ettet  d'enlever  uu  tonneau  de  vin,  (jui  avait  ete  introduit, 
par  contrebande,  sur  le  territoire  sarde,  ainsi  qu'un  char  et  des  vaches  qui 
avaieut  servi  de  nioyens  de  transport,  lesquels  objets  avaient  etc  saisis 

par  les  preposes  de  la  douane,  et  que  ces  objets,  ainsi  violenmient 
[208J    enleves,  ont  ete  raraenc^s  ii  la  *frontiere ;  que  Joseph  Cayen,  Pierre 

Malenjon  et  Antoiue  Magnin  sont  suffisauinient  prevenus  d'avoir 
fait  partie  de  cet  attroui)ement,  d'eu  avoir  ete  les  chefs  et  d'avoir,  d'une 
nianiere  active,  i)articipe  a  I'attaque  du  post  de  la  douane  sarde  et  aux 
actes  de  violence  ci  tlessus  enonces;  (|ue  cesfaits  constituent  des  actions 
hostiles  non  api)rouvees  parle  gouverneineut,  lesquelles  exposaient  Petot 
a  une  declaration  de  guerre,  outout  au  moins  des  actes  non-approuves 
par  le  gouvernenient,  lesquels  exposaient  des  Fran^ais  ji  eprouver  des 
represailles,  crimes  prevus  par  les  art.  84  et  85,  c.  pen.,  et  emportant 
peine  afflictive  et  infamante; — attendu  qu'il  resultede  la  dite  procedure 
qu'Autoiue  Terret est  suftisamment prevenu  d'avoir,  pardons,  promesses, 
machinations  ou  artifices  coupables,  provoqud  les  auteurs  des  crimes 
cidessus  enonces  a  les  commettre,  ou  donne  des  instructions  pour  les 
commettre; — attendu  que  le  fait  est  qualifle  crime  par  la  loi;  qu'il  est 
prevu  par  les  art.  59  et  00,  c.  pen.,  et  qu'il  importe  peine  afflictive  et 
infamante  ;r— attendu  qu'aux  termes  de  I'art.  5,  c.  inst.  crim.,  toutFran- 
cais  qui  s'est  rendu  coupable,  hors  du  territoire  de  France,  d'un  crime 
attentatoire  s\  la  surete  de  l'6tat,  pent  etre  poursuivi,  juge  et  puni  en 
France,  d'apres  les  dispositions  des  lois  fran^uiises: — par  ces  motifs,  de- 
clare qu'il  y  a  lieu  a  accusation  centre  Antoine  Perret,  Joseph  Cayen,  etc. 
Du  25  avril  IS3I,  c.  de  Grenoble,  ch.  reun.  MM.  Yignes,  pr.  Moyne, 
Ijr.-gen. 

1 209 1  *!}. 

[Translation,] 
Dalloz,  General  Jurisprudence,  vol.  XIV,  p.  531. 

Skction  5. — Acts  which  may  expose  a  state  to  a  declaration  of  war,  and 

its  citizens  to  reprisals. 

«»7,  Here  it  is  no  longer  a  question  of  treason  ;  it  is  a  question  of  simple 
acts  which  tend  less  to  show  the  perversity  or  immorality  of  the  per 
former  than  his  imiirudence,  his  temerity,  or  his  foolishness.    They  are 


COUNTER    CASi:    OF    THK    UXI'IEl)    STATES, 


acts  which,  accordiiifj  to  the  circumstances  uinlor  which  tlicy  happen, 
might  expose  the  state  to  a  det:hiration  ol"  war,  or  the  citizens  to  repri- 
sals. They  are  the  subject  of  two  r.rticl^s.  '•  Whoever,"  says  articU'  84, 
j)enalco<le,  "shall  have  exposed  the  state  to  a  declaration  ot  war  by  hos- 
tile acts  not  approved  by  the  government,  shall  be  punished  by  banish- 
ment; an<l,  if  war  should  follow,  by  deportation."'  Not  understanding 
how  the  act  of  a  private  individual  could  be  of  enough  ijni>ortance  to  ex 
pose  the  state  to  a  declaration  of  war,  Carnotwasof  the  oi>inion  that  this 
article  could  only  apply  to  govermnent  agents,  lie  says:  "The  acts  of 
government  agents  alone  can  bring  about  a  war  between  France  an«l 
foreign  nations;  we  see  this  also  explicitly  set  forth  in  article  S.j,  which 
treats  particularly  of  private  individuals."    The  same  author  refers  in 

sui)port  of  his  opinion  to  the  terms  of  article  li  of  the   code  of 
[LIIO]    1791,  part  *'2,  section  1,  wiiich  is  indeed  to  this  effect:  but  at  the 

present  time  this  is  not  the  fact^  and,  in  face  of  the  geiieralty  of 
the  word  whoever,  usqi\  in  article  84,  no  uncertainty  can  possibly  exist 
on  this  point.  (V.  the  "icquisitoire"  de  31.  Dupin,  in  the  Jauge  case.) 
(jS.  A  first  condition  is  necessary  to  constitute  the  crime  provided  for 
in  article  84;  it  is  that  the  imputed  actions  should  be  hostile.  Wiiat  is 
then  to  bo  understood  by  this  word?  The  raw  does  not  answer  this 
<|uestion,  nor  could  it  do  so,  for  the  definition  depends  no  less  upon  the 
nature  of  the  relations  existing  between  the  two  nations  than  upon  the 
<'ircunistances  under  which  the  act  is  committed.  The  gravest  and  most 
important  act  would  pass  unnoticed  and  would  not  lead  to  a  conflict,  if 
the  nation  to  whose  prejudice  it  had  been  done  should  be  bouiul  by  ties 
of  friendship  to  France,  or  should  not  be  in  condition  to  carry  on  war, 
while  on  the  other  hand  the  most  insigniticant  act,  the  smallest  olfense, 
would  lead  to  an  outbreak,  if  this  nation  should  bt?  only  waiting  for  a 
pretext  to  commencr>.  operations.  It  w^as,  therefore,  .  ise  to  refuse  to 
define  hostile  acts  which  might  expose  the  state  to  a  declaration  of  war 
in  the  law,  and  to  confine  it  simply  to  an  exposition  of  their  result.  And 
in  accordance  with  this  article,  it  lias  been  decided  that  the  negotiation 
of  loans  in  the  name  of  a  ])riiice  at  war  with  an  ally  may  not  be  regarded 

as  constituting  a  hostile  action  of  a  nature  to  expose  France  to  a 
[211]    declaration  of  war,  unless  tiiis  action  falls  under  the  *censure  of 

the  c»>urt  of  cassation. — ((^lim.  rcj.  LIS  X;^v.,  18'}1 — Jaugo  case, 
No.  28.) 

(iO.  A  second  condition  constituting  the  cri'ne  is  that  the  aCts  shall  not 
have  been  approved  by  the  government.  Observe  that  the  law  »loes 
not  say  authorized,  for  the  authorization,  having  lunn  previous  to  the 
act,  renders  it  legitimate  and  lawful,  and  no  prosecution  is  ever  possible; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  approliation  is  posterior  to  the  act,  and  does 
not  change  its  character,  but  only  insures  immunity  from  its  conse- 
(piences.  If  government  approves  liostile  acts,  it  appropriates  them,  it 
assumes  the  responsibility  and  ('((usefiuences  of  them,  and  protects  the 
agent  from  all  jtrosecution. 

70.  A  third  coinlition  to  tlio  crinu^  is  that  the  hostile  acts  shouhl  have 
exposed  the  state  to  a  declaration  of  war.  Observe  the  law  does  not  say 
to  hostilities,  but  to  a  declaration  of  war,  (V.  Crim.  rej.,  28  Nov.,  1834, 
.lauge  case,  No.  28;  MM.  Chauveau  «St  Uleie,  vol.  2,  p.  Gl.)  Think 
that  it  svould  have  been  better  if  the  code  had  demanded  hostile  acts 
simple,  "for,"  they  say,  "the  aggressions  which  are  most  often  mani- 
fested, either  on  tlie  frontiers  between  the  border  itihabitauts,  or  on  the 
sea  on  isolated  islands,  may  lead  to  acts  of  the  same  nature,  but 
not  a  declaration  of  war."  In  the  present  state  of  Europe,  the  isolated 
act  of  a  citizen,  or  even  of  a  government  fu'.ictioiiary,  wouhl  not  be 


6 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON PAPERS    ACCOMPANYING 


likely  to  load  to  a  war.  A  declaration  of  war  does  uot  take  place 
until  the  injured  state  Las  asked  explanations,  and  if  the  govern- 
[212]  ment  *to  which  the  aggressor  belongs  has  had  no  connivance  in  the 
act,  then,  as  soon  as  this  goveinnient  disavows  it,  it  is  improbable 
that  a  war  can  follow."  But  may  it  not  happen  that  the  oftended  gov- 
ernment is  m)t  contented  with  this  disavowal ;  that,  exaggerating  the 
oflense,  it  also  exaggerates  its  demands;  that  it  requires  repanition 
humiliating  to  France,  and  satisfaction  to  which  tlie  latter  cannot 
agree  ? 

71.  The  commission  of  the  Corps  Legislatif  proposed  (meeting  of  the 
Oth  of  January,  1810)  to  declare  the  punishment  to  be  deatli  instead  of 
deportation  in  case  the  hostile  acts  should  lead  to  war,  the  punishment 
of  depoatation  not  being  sufticient  when  such  a  blow  has  followed  the 
crime.  The  Conseil  d'Etat  rejected  this  motion  because  article  84  sup- 
poses that  the  agent  has  not  calculated  the  result  of  his  actions;  and 
even  if  it  were  otherwise,  if  there  had  been  trickery  or  an  understand- 
ing, the  act  would  fall  under  the  preceding  articles.  Is  this  answer  abso- 
lutely correct?  MM.  Chauveau  &  Ilelie  (v.  2,  p.  04)  do  uot  think  so. 
"  Without  doubt,"  they  say,  "  if  the  hostile  actions  were  the  result  of 
an  understanding  with  foreign  powers,  article  70  could  be  applied  in 
accordance  with  the  case  ;  but  if  the  acts  had  been  concerted  with  no 
foreign  power,  had  been  ] (receded  by  no  act  preparatory  to  treason, 
although  they  were  i)reineditated,  they  would  come  under  no  part  of  the 
same  section." 

72.  On  the  otherhand,  at  Ihe  time  of  the  revision  of  the  code,  it  was 
])roposed  by  a  member  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  to  substitute 

[213]  temporary  detention  for  deportation.  The  author  *supported  his 
proposition  by  saying  that  in  almost  all  cases,  whenever  this  crime 
is  possible,  the  (criminal  is  actuated  by  a  feeling  of  courage,  even  of 
generosity,  thoughtless,  undoubtedly,  but  presenting  none  of  that  depth 
of  guilt  assigned  to  it  in  article  82.  "  The  chamber  did  not  feel  at  lib- 
erty to  adopt  this  amendment,"  according  to  the  note  of  the  w  reporter, 
"for  if  one  is  to  judge  of  the  act  by  the  intention,  there  is  no  intentiou 
more  culpable  than  that  which,  not  taking  into  account  the  grave  inte- 
rests of  France,  exposes  it  to  the  chances  and  misfortunes  of  war ;"  con- 
sequently the  jjunishment  of  deportation  was  retained. 

Besides,  it  must  be  observed  that  it  is  not  the  hostile  act,  violence,  or 
depredation  that  the  law  punishes,  but  only  tnefact  of  having  by  these 
acts  exposed  the  state  to  a  declaration  of  war. — (V.  crim.  lej.  18th  June, 
1824;  llerpin  vnse.  vo.  comp.  crim..  No.  112.) 

73.  Article  85  reads  :  "  VVhoe\  er  shall  ha\  e  «>xposed  the  French  to 
reprisals,  by  acts  not  approved  by  government,  shall  be  punished  by 
banishment."  Observe,  the  law  does  uot  say  whoever  shall  havG  caused 
reprisals,  but  whoever  shall  have  exposed  Frenchmen  to  them,  whence 
it  follows  that  for  the  charge  it  is  of  little  account  whether  or  not  repri- 
sals have  taken  place;  it  is  sufticient  that  French  inhabitants  have  been 
exj)Osed  to  the  danger  of  them.  What  should  be  the  UiUure  of  the  acts 
spoken  of  in  this  article,  capable  to  expose  the  inhabitants  of  France  to 
the  danger  of  reprisals  ?    We  can  only  understand  them  to  be  of  the 

nature  of  outrages  and  acts  of  violence  committed  on  the  subjects 
[214]    of  a  foreigu   nation,  and  not  of  simple   *losses,  as  the  original 

draught  had  it. — (Conf.  MM.  Carnot  on  the  said  art. ;  Chauveau 
and  Helie,  v.  2,  j).  01.) 

74.  Is  it  necessary  that  the  reprisals  shall  have  been  ordered  by  the 
foreign  government  1  MM.  Chauveau  and  Ilelie,  vol.  2,  p.  02,  pro- 
nounce in  the  altirmative.    It  appears  to  us  impossible  to  admit  this 


:^ 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES. 


ike  place 
e  govern - 
uce  in  the 
iprobable 
uled  gov- 
iting  the 
eparation 
r  cannot 

ig  of  the 
n  stead  of 
nishment 
lowed  the 
le  84  sup 
ons;  and 
[k'l'stand- 
wer  abso- 
think  so. 
result  of 
pplied  in 
with  no 
treason, 
art  of  the 


le,  it  was 
ubstitute 
lorted  his 
his  crime 
,  even  of 
lat  depth 
el  at  lib- 
reporter, 
ntention 
ive  inte- 
ir;"  con- 

>lence,  or 
by  these 
>th  June, 

reach  to 
shed  by 
a  caused 
whence 
ot  repri- 
ave  been 
the  acts 
ranee  to 
e  of  the 
subjects 
original 
bauveau 

by  the 
152,'  pro- 
uiit  this 


restriction  when  the  law  confines  itself  to  saying :  "  Whoever  shall  have 
exposed  Frenchmen  to  reprisals  *  *  shall  be  punished,''  *  *  &c.; 
evidently  this  cannot  be  interpreted  as  if  it  read:  Whoever  shall  have 
]>rovoked  reprisals  by  a  foreign  government  against  Frenchmen,  &c. 
Tiius  we  are  of  oi)iiii()U  that  if,  for  example,  certain  Englishmen  Lad 
Mitfered  outrages  from  certain  FreiKihmen,  of  such  a  nature  that  they 
might  i>rovoke  reprisals  against  Frenclnuen  in  England,  these  outrages 
should  be  i)unished,  in  conformity  to  article  85,  without  it  being  neces- 
sary that  the  reprisals  should  have  been  ordered  by  the  English  gov- 
ernment. Such  is  also  the  opinion  of  JM.  Hans;  and  it  has  been  decided 
in  this  connection  that  violence  exercised  by  Frenchmen  toward  the 
agents  of  the  customs  of  a  foreign  government,  the  result  of  which  was 
the  removal  of  certain  articles  smuggled  into  the  foreign  territory,  and 
seized  by  the  otticers,  constituted  hostile  acts  in  the  sense  of  article  84, 
penal  code,  or  at  least  acts  which  would  exi>ose  the  French  reprisals  in 
the  sense  of  article  85  of  the  same  code,  (Grenoble,  L*5th  April,  1831 ; 
[215]  jNIin.  Public,  c.  Cayen,  &c.)  The  court:  Whereasfiom  the  case  *we 
conclude,  that  on  the  25th  of  February,  1831,  at  11  o'clock  in  the 
evening,  a  mob  of  forty  or  flfty  persons,  inhabitants  of  French  territory, 
went  into  Sardinian  territory,  where  they  attacked  the  postof  the  Sardin- 
ian customs,  and  committed  various  acts  of  violence  on  the  otlicers;  that 
the  post  was  invaded  and  the  corps-de-garde  disarmed;  that  a  carbine 
was  tired  at  one  of  the  overseers ;  ihat  the  other  arms  were  retained  and 
discharged;  that  the  doors  of  a  coach-house  and  stable  were  broken  in, 
in  order  to  carry  ott"  a  tun  of  wine  which  had  been  smuggled  into  Sar- 
dinian territory,  as  well  as  a  cart  and  some  cows  which' had  served  as 
the  means  of  transport,  which  objects  had  been  seized  b.y  the  inspect- 
ors of  the  customs;  and  that  these  objects,  thus  violently  carried  off, 
were  brought  back  to  the  frontier ;  that  Joseph  Cayen,  Pierre  Morlenjon, 
and  Antoine  Maguin  are  sufficiently  convicted  of  having  taken  part 
Avith  this  mob,  of  having  been  its  leaders,  and  of  having  participated 
in  an  active  manner  in  the  attack  on  the  Sardinian  post  of  customs  and 
in  the  other  acts  of  violence  as  aforesaid;  that  these  acts  constitute 
hostile  jictions  not  approved  by  the  government,  which  exposed  the 
state  to  reprisals,  ciimes  provided  for  in  articles  84  and  85,  penal  code, 
and  accompanied  by  a  personal  and  infamous  jmnishment: 

Whereas  it  results  from  the  said  procedure  that  Antoine  Per- 
[210]  ret  is  sufficiently  convicted  of  having,  by  gifts,  *promises,  mach- 
inations of  criminal  artifices,  instigated  the  authors  of  the  afore- 
said crimes  to  commit  them,  or  of  having  given  instructions  to  commit 
them;  whereas  the  act  is  defined  by  the  law  as  a  crime,  and  is  provided 
for  in  articles  59  and  GO,  penal  code,  and  is  accompanied  by  a  i)ersonal 
and  infamous  punishment;  whereas,  according  to  the  terms  of  article  5, 
0.  Inst.  Crim.,  every  Frenchman  guilty  outside  of  the  territory  of  France 
of  a  crime  endangering  the  security  of  the  state,  can  be  proceeded  against, 
convicted,  and  punished  in  France  according  to  the  laws  of  France: 
Therefore  it  is  declared  that  there  is  ground  of  accusation  against  An- 
toine Perret,  Joseph  Cayen,  &c. — (25th  Ai)ril,  1831,  C.  of  Grenoble,  Ch. 
reun.  MM.  Vignes,  pr,  Moyne,  pr.-gen. 


|217]  •C. 

Theorie  du  code  penal   d^Adolphe  Cliaurean  et  FaunHn   Uelh',  troiaidme 
edition,  tome  2e,  pages  58  ct  seq.,  articles  84  et  85. 

11  ne  s'agit  i»lu8  d'un  crime  de  trahiscm:  la  loi  ne  soup§onne  meme 
aucune  intelligence  entre  I'agent  qu'elle  inculpe  et  les  ennemisde  l'6tat; 


^ 


8 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON PAPERS    ACCOMPANYING 


ce  qu'elle  pnnit,  ce  sont  ties  actes  impriulents  et  ttitneraires,  qui  peuvent 
attirer  sur  le8  citoyens  des  repreaailles ;  sur  I'etat  la  guerre,  avec  ses 
chances  et  ses  niallieurs.  "  Si  on  n'avait  pas  mis  dans  le  code,"  a  dit  uu 
illustre  magistrat  (M.  Dupin,  requisitoiredans  I'affaire  Jauge), "  des  peines 
contre  I'lionirae  qui  expose  son  i)ays  li  la  guerre,  si  Ic  crime  etait  impuni, 
il  n'y  aurait  aucune  satisfaction  legale  a donner  a  I'etranger  qui  se  plaint: 
la  guerre  serait  le  seul  reuiede;  on,  bien,  on  ferait  comme  cbez  les  peu- 
l)les  anciens,  on  attadierait  cet  honune  les  mains  derriere  le  dos  avec 
une  corde,  on  lui  ferait  franchir  la  frontiere,  et  on  le  livreralt  a  I'etran- 
ger,  pour  qu'il  ])uisse  en  faire  Justice.  II  y  aurait  inhunianite;  il  faut 
que  le  pays  ait  ses  lois,  qu'il  y  ait  des  juges  francais  pour  juger  et  punir 
les  jou]>al)les,  aiin  qu'elle  ottre  aux  etrangors  une  jtiste  satisfac- 
[218j  tion.  La  loi  fran<;aise*a  conserve  la  dignitc  nationale  en  niettant 
parmi  les  crimes  les  faits  de  cette  nature,  et  en  r«''servant  le  Juge- 
ment  a  des  juges  francais.  Quelle  que  soit  cette  (iecijiiion,  elle  devra 
etre  respectee  ;  alors,  si  on  fait  la  guerre,  elle  sera  juste.'' 

Rappelons  le  texte  des  deux  articles: 

Article  84.  ......  . 

Article  85.  ......  . 

II  est  evident  ((ue  ces  deux  dispositions  prevolent  le  meme  fait,  niais  eri 
le  supposant  dans  des  especes  diverses  et  eu  lui  imprimant  un  caractere 
difllerent.    Nous  allons  successivement  examiner  ces  deux  liypotheses. 

M.  Carnot  parait  penser  que  I'article  84  ne  s'applique  qu'aux  agents 
du  gouvernement,  et  il  se  fonde  sur  ce  qu'il  n'y  a  que  les  agents  qui, 
par  des  agressiona  liostiles  on  des  infractions  aux  traites,  puissent 
exposer  I'etat  a  une  declaiation  de  guerre.  Le  code  penal  do  1791  por- 
tait,  en  eiiet,  dans  I'article  2  de  la  section  lore  de  la  2eme  i)artie:  -'Que, 
lorsqu'il  a  »''te  commis  quelques  agressions  liostiles  ou  infractions  de 
traites,  tendantes  a  alluiner  la  guerre  entre  la  France  et  une  nation 
[219 1  etrangere  .  .  .  .  le*ministre  qui  aurait  donne  ou  contre-sign(3 
I'ordre,  ou  le  commandant  des  forces  nationales,  de  terre  ou  de  mer, 
qui,  sans  ordre,  aurait  commis  les  dites  agressions  liostiles  ou  infractions 
de  traite,  serait  puni  de  mort."'  Mais  si  le  legislateur  de  1791  n'avait  cru 
devoir  s'occuper  que  des  actes  hostiles  du  fonctionnaire,  notre  code  a 
efface  cette  restriction  ;  I'article,  en  employant  le  mot  quiconqiie,  ne  laisse 
aucun  doute  sur  sa  generalite. 

La  loi  n'a  point  tlefini  les  actes  hostiles,  et  peutV'tre  cette  definition 
etait-elle  impossible.  En  general  les  actes  de  cette  nature  empruntent 
toute  leur  valcur  politi<iue  des  circonstances  dans  lesquelles  ils  se  pro- 
duisent.  Un  fait  grave,  important,  n'entrainera  aucune  consequence 
serieuse,  s'il  est  commis  envers  une  nation  que  des  liens  etroits  d'amiti«^ 
unissent  a  la  France.  Dans  d'autres  circonstances,  le  fait  le  plus  mimirae 
l)eut  clever  uu  contiit  et  jeter  I'alarme  an  sein  de  deux  nations.  II  faut 
done  se  borner  a  dire,  dans  les  termes  de  la  loi,  que  les  actions  hostiles 
sont  toutes  les  actes  materiels  qui,  nonapprouves  par  le  gouvernement, 

out  expose  I'etat  a  une  declaration  de  guerre. 
[220J        Ainsi,  il  ne  suftirait  pas  que  les  *actes  hostiles  eussent  expose 
j\  de  simples  hostilites:  lo  loi  exige  formellement,  pour  constituer  le 
crime,  le  peril  et  I'alarme  d'une  declaration  de  guerre.    Ce  point  a  ete  so- 
lennellement  reconnu  par  la  cour  de  cassation  dans  I'aflfaire  Jaiige.  .  .  . 

Et  ceci  nous  donnera  lieu  de  remarquer  une  sorte  de  lacune  dans  la 
loi.  Dans  I'etut  politique  de  I'Europe,  il  est  difficile  que  le  fait  isol6 
d'un  simnle  citoyen,  et  meme  d'un  fonctionnaire  public,  puisse  allumer  la 
guerre  entre  deux  nations.  Une  declaration  de  guerre  n'intervient  pas 
sans  que  I'etat  offens6  ait  demaude  des  explications.  Et  des  que  I'a- 
gression  a  etc  commise  si  I'iusu  du  gouvernement  auquel  appartient 


<G 


COIIMEK   CASE    OF    THE    UNITED   STATES 


iii  peuvent 
;,  avec  ses 
(,"  a  (lit  un 
des  peines 
lit  inipuni, 
i  se  plaint: 
ez  les  peu- 
i  (los  avec 
t  a  I'e  trail - 
ito ;  il  fant 
er  et  pnuir 
te  satisfac- 
Mi  niettant 
lit  le  Jiige- 
elle  (levra 


lit,  niais  on 
1  caractore 

potllt'St'8. 

lux  agents 
gents  qui, 
;,  puissent 
I  1791  por- 
;ie:  -'Que, 
ictioiis  de 
Line  nation 
»ntre-sign(3 
on  de  nier, 
nfractions 
I'avait  cm 
tre  code  a 
3,  ne  laisse 

d«!finition 
npruiitent 
il.s  se  pro- 
iseqnence 
s  d'aniiti<') 
s  uiiniime 
p.  II  fant 
s  liostiles 
tirnement, 

nt  expose 
istituer  le 
t  a  ete  so- 
ige.  .  .  . 
e  dans  la 
fait  isol6 
illuiner  la 
A'ieat  pa* 
que  I'a- 
ppartieut 


I'agent,  des  que  le  gouvernement  la  desavone  liautenient,  il  est  impro- 
bable que  la  guerre  puisse  .jamais  en  etre  la  conseciuence.  11  suit  de  la, 
etc'est  aussi  ce  que  continue  I'experience,  quel'art.  84,  quoique  destine  a 
reprimer  un  fait  coui>al)le,  doit  demeurer  sans  application  dans 
no8  lois.  Mais  il  en  eut  etc  autrement  si  le  Irgislateur  avait  modifie 
I'uue  des  circonstances  constitutives  de  ce  crime,  s'il  s'etait  borne 
a  exiger  que  les  actes  liostiles  fussent  de  nature  a  e!^poser  I'etat, 
non  a  uiie  declaration  de  guerre,  niais  a  de  simples  actes  bos- 
[2-'IJ  tiles:  car  les  agressions  qui  se  mauifesteut  le  plus  souvent,  *soit 
sur  les  frontieres  entre  des  babitauts  riverains,  soit  en  mer  sur  dea 
iiavires  isoles,  jieuvent  provoquer  <les  actes  de  la  menie  nature, 
mais  non  uue  declaration  de  guerre.  On  pourrait  objecter  <|ue  le  cas  oil 
I'agression  provoque  des  actes  bostiles  envers  letat  rentre  dans  les  ter- 
mes  de  I'art.  85.  Ce  serait  uiie  erreur:  cet  article  ne  paiiit  que  les  actes 
qui  exposent  les  Francais  Tides  represailles ;  or,  cette  expression,  opposee 
aux  actes  qui  exposent  V^'tat  a  la  guerre  dans  Tart.  84,  indiquo  claire- 
meiit  que  le  premier  de  ces  articles  n'a  jirevu  que  les  rejiresailles  exer- 
cees  contre  les  particuliers,  et  nous  verrons  tout  Ji  I'beure  que  tel  est 
aussi  le  sens  de  cette  disposition.  lieste,  done,  Tbypotbese  oil  I'agressiou 
a  attire  des  bostilites,  mais  non  la  guerre  envers  le  pays  ;  et  cette  by- 
potb«ise  ecbappe  a  I'une  et  a  I'autre  de  ces  deux  incriminations. 

Que  faut-il  entendre  par  des  actes  qui  exposent  les  Francais  a  des 
repvesailles  ? 

M.  Caruot  pense  que  le  legislateur  avoulu  parler  des  outrages  et  voies 
de  fait  commis  envers  des  sujets  d'une  nation  etrangere.  [L'  article  I'M  du 
code  prussien  porte :  "Celui  qui  sepermet  des  outrages  contre  des  sujets 
d'une puissanceetrangere,  memeborsdu  royaume,etexposeainsi  les  sujets 
prussiens  a  des  represailles  de  la  part  du  gonvernementetranger, 
|222]  doit  etre  *pimicommeH'il  eut  commis  le  delit  dans  I'interieur.]  En 
efi'et,  puisque  ces  actes  n'exposent  (jue  des  Francais  individuelle- 
ment,  et  non  la  societe  francaise,  a  des  represailles,  il  s'eiisuit  que  dans  la 
prevision  delaloiilsn'ontduott'euseregalement  que  des  individus.  Cepen- 
dant,il  nous  seinble  necessaire  que  les  represaiiies  soient  commandees  par 
legouvernement  etranger.  Ainsi  nous  ne  pourrions  admettre  avec  M. 
Hans  que  I'insulte  faite  a  un  Anglais  a  Bruxelles  put  motiver  I'iipplica- 
tion  de  cet  article,  jiar  cela  seul  que  les  lielges  qui  resident  en  Vngle- 
terre  seraient  expos«'^s  a  <les  represailles,  avant  mc'ine  (lu'aucune  decision 
de  I'antorite  etrangere  n'eut  proiiouce  de  repn'-sailles.  Ce  ne  soiit  la  iii 
les  faits  ni  les  represailles  (pie  la  loi  a  eus  en  vue.  En  general  elle  a 
voulu  prevenir  les  voies  de  fait  et  les  depredations  qui  peuvent  s'exercer 
sur  les  frontieres  d'un  royaume,  sur  un  territoire  ami.  Sans  doute,  les 
esprces  peuvent  varier  a  I'intini,  mais  il  faut  que  les  violences  soient 
assez  graves  pour  exposer  a  des  represailles ;  et  ce  dernier  terme,  dans 
le  droit  des  gens,  exige  I'interveution  d'une  autorit*'  etrangere. 

All  reste,  on  ne  doit  pas  perdre  de  vue,  dans  I'application  de 
[223]  ces  deux  articles,  que  ce  ne  sont  pas  les  actes  bostiles,  les  *  vio- 
lences ou  les  depredations  que  la  loi  punit,  nuiis  seulement  le 
fait  d'avoir  par  ces  actes  expose  I'etat  a  une  declaration  de  guerre  ou 
les  Francais  a  des  represailles.  [Arret  de  cassation,  18  juin  1824. 
(Bourguignon,  tome  3,  page,  91.)]  C'est  la  paix,  ce  sont  les  interets  na- 
tionaux  qu'elle  a  voulu  proteger;  c'est  le  prejudice  eventuel  que  les 
actes  peuvent  produire  qui  devient  la  base  de  la  peine.  Ainsi  la  crimi- 
nalite  nese  puise  pas  dans  la  gravite  intrins«'que  des  faits,  mais  dans 
leur  importance  politique,  dans  les  cbances  de  guerre  ou  de  represailles 
qu'ils  out  soulevees;  en  un  mot,  dans  la  perturbation  politique  qii'ils  out 
cause. 


w 


10 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON PAPEKS    ACCOMPANi'INO 


Ces  (lisi>ositions  out  «''te  rarement  appliquces;  il  inii»oi'te  dos  lors  de 
vecueillir  avec  plus  de  soin  los  esjK'ces  ou  cette  application  a  eu  lieu.  Lo 
Sieur  llerpiu  avait  capture  un  iiavire  sarde  pendant  qu'il  commandait 
iin  navire  coloinbien;  accus*';  d'avoir  conimis  un  acte  hosf-ie  qui  expo- 
sait  la  Fiance  a  une  declaration  de  guerre  de  la  Sardai'  .,  ou  du  moin8 
a  des  represailles,  il  repondait  que  ce  fait  ne  rentiuit  point  dans  les 
ternjes  des  art.  84  et  85,  et  que,  d'ailleurs,  conimis  en  pays  etranger,  il 

n'etait  pas  justiciable  des  tribunaux  de  France.  La  cour  de 
[224]    *  cassation  a  rejete  ces  exceptions  en  se  fondant  sur  ce  que  toute 

la  criniinalite  juevue  par  ces  articles  consistait  uniquemeut  dans 
le  fait  d'avoir  expose  IV'tat  u  une  declaration  de  guerre  ou  les  Fran^ais 
a  des  rei)r«''sailles ;  que  le  prejudice  eventuel  faisait  rertrer  I'acte  in- 
criuiine  dans  la  categoric  des  faits  qvie  les  art.  5,  G,  et  7  du  code  d'in- 
struction  criiuinelle  <leterent  any  tribunaux  fran(;ai8,  et  que  cet  acte 
reuuissait,  d'ailleurs,  les  caracteres  pr6vus  et  punis  i>ar  les  art.  84  et  85. 
])e  cet  arret,  (jui  a  juge  an  fond  en  point  de  fait,  il  resulte  cette  seule 
regie,  que  les  crimes  prevus  par  cet  article  i)euvent,  lorsqu'ils  oat  etc 
coinniis  en  pays  etranger,  et  qu'ils  se  trouvent  dans  les  cas  prevus  par 
le  code  d'instruction  criminelle,  etre  I'objet  d'une  poursuite  en  France. 

Dans  une  seconde  esp»;ce  qui  senible  de  nature  Ti  se  renouveler  d'avan 
tage,  un  attroupeiuent  de  50  Fran^ais  s'etait  porte  sur  le  territoire  sarde, 
et  avait  exerc*';  des  violences  envers  un  i)oste  de  la  douane  etrangere, 
dans  le  but  d'enlever  des  objets  iutroduits  en  contrebande  dans  la 
Sardaigne  et  que  les  preposes  avaient  saisis.  La  chambre  d'accusation 
de  la  cour  royale  de  Grenoble  a  reconnu  que  ces  foits  constituaient  des 

actes  hostiles  non-approuves  par  le  gouvernemeut,  lesquels  ex- 
[225]    jiosaient  *l'etat  a  une  declaration  de  guerre;  ou  tout  au  moins 

des  actes  nou  approuves  par  le  gouvernement,  lesquels  exposaieut 
des  Francais  a  eprouver  des  repi-esailles.  11  est  a  remarquer  que  dans 
cet  arret,  conime  dans  le  precedent,  les  juges  out  cru  n^cessaire  d'accu- 
muler  la  double  accusation  des  deux  crimes  prevus  par  les  art.  84  et  85. 
C'est  qn'il  est  evident  que  la  premiere,  circonscrite  dans  les  termes  trop 
restrictifs  de  Part.  84,  n'a  que  peu  de  chances  de  succes.  L'observatiou 
que  nous  avons  fiiite  plus  haut  se  trouve  done  confirmee  par  la  pra- 
tique.— Jurisprudence  des  codes  criminels  par  M.Bourguignon,  tome  3", 
p.  86 ;  (Jommentairr  sur  le  code  penal,  par  M.  Carnot,  seconde 
edition,  tome  l*^"",  pp.  300  et  seqs. ;  Traite  tbeorique  et  i)ratique  du  droit 
criminel  francais,  par  M.  Kauter,  tome  l'"",  p.  418,  No.  287. 


renie 


j22< 


(228] 


[226] 


*C. 


[Translation.] 

Theory  of  the  penal  code  ;  by  AdoJphe  Cliauvcau  and  Fausthi  Heine  ;  third 
edition,  .second  volume,  pages  58  et  aeq,  lit.  84-5. 


The  crime  of  treason  is  no  longer  in  question.  The  law  does  no  sup- 
pose any  understanding  to  exist  between  the  agent  that  it  arraigns  and 
the  enemies  of  the  state;  it  punishes  the  imprudent  acts  and  acts  of 
temerity  which  might  make  her  citizens  suffer  from  reprisals,  or  bring 
a  war  with  all  its  cliances  and  misfortunes  upon  the  state.  If,  said  a 
famous  magistrate,  (M.  Dui)in,  requisitoire  in  the  Jauge  case,)  thev  had 
not  ordered  in  the  code  punishment  for  him  who  exposes  his  country  to 
war,  if  the  crime  were  not  punishable,  there  would  be  no  legal  satisfac- 
tion to  the  foreign  nation  which  complained.    War  would  be  the  only 


IM 


COl'NTKR    CASK    OF    THE    UNITED    ST'TES. 


11 


remedy;  or  we  would  be  obliged  to  follow  the  ancients,  who  tied  the 
man's  hands  behind  his  back  with  a  cord,  r...tde  him  cross  the  frontier, 
and  gave  him  up  to  the  foreign  nation  that  it  might  administer  justice 
on  his  case.    This  would  be  unnatural.    A  country  must  have  its  own 
laws  and  its  own  Judges  to  Judge  and  ]>unish  guilty  ])ersons,  in  order 
that  it  may  otter  to  a  foreign  state  a  Just  satisfaction.     French  law  has 
preserved  the  national  dignity  in  putting  among  crimes  acts  of  this  na- 
ture, and  in  reserving    judgment  on  them  for  French    Judges. 
]L'27]     *\Vliatever  be  this  decision  it  should  be  respected;  then,  if  war  fol- 
lows, it  will  be  a  just  one.     Let  us  look  at  the  text  of  the  articles : 
Art.  84.  *         '       *  *  *  *  * 

ART.  8.-).  *  *  *  *  .  * 

It  is  evident  that  the  two  arrangements  provide  for  the  same  action, 
hut  supposing  it  divided  into  diiferent  species  aiul  imprinting  dilfereut 
ciuiracters  upon  it.  We  will  successively  examine  tht^se  two  liypo- 
tlieses. 

jM.  Carnot  appeared  to  think  that  article  84  applied  only  to  govi'rn- 
uuMit  agents,  and  he  depends  u])on  the  statement  that  only  agents  of 
the  government  can,  by  hostile  aggressions,  and  infractions  of  treaties, 
expose  the  state  to  a  declaration  of  war.  The  penal  code  of  171)1,  in 
fact,  reads,  article  2,  section  ],  part  2  :  "If  any  hostile  aggression  or  in- 
fraction of  a  treaty  has  been  committed,  which  tends  to  cause  var  be- 
tween France  and  a  foreign  country,  *  *  *  the  minister  \.u0  shall 
have  given  or  countersigned  the  order,  or  the  commander  of  the  national 
Ibrces  on  land  or  water  who,  without  orders,  shall  have  committed  the 
hostile  aggression  or  infraction  of  treaty,  shall  be  punished  by  death." 
3>ut,  altliough  the  legislator  of  1791  occupied  himself  only  with  the 
lu)stile  acts  of  public  functionaries,  our  code  has  ettaced  this  restriction. 
The  article  in  employing  the  word  whoever  left  no  doubt  as  to  its  gener- 
ality. The  law  has  not  defined  hostile  a-^.ts,  and  perhaps  a 
(228]  def*initiou  was  impossible.  Generally,  acts  of  this  nature  get 
all  their  political  value  from  the  circumstances  under  which  they 
take  place.  A  grave  and  imi)ortant  act  will  have  no  serious  consequence 
if  committed  against  a  nation  closely  bound  in  friendship  to  France. 
Under  other  circumstances,  the  least  act  might  occasion  a  conflict  and 
throw  the  nation  into  a  state  of  alarm.  It  is  necessary,  then,  to  confine 
oneself  to  the  terms  of  the  law,  that  hostile  actions  are  all  material 
acts  which,  not  being  approved  by  the  government,  have  exposed  the 
state  to  a  declaration  of  war. 

Thus  it  would  not  be  enough  that  the  hostile  acts  should  have  simply 
caused  an  exposure  to  hostilities  ;  the  law  formally  demands,  in  order 
to  constitute  the  crime,  the  peril  and  alarm  of  a  declaration  of  war. 
This  point  was  solemnly  recognized  by  the  court  of  cassation  in  the 
Jauge  case. 

And  this  gives  us  occasion  to  observe  what  ma}'  be  regarded  as  a 
deficiency  in  the  law.    In  the  political  state  of  Europe  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult for  the  isolated  act  of  a  simple  citizen,  or  even  of  a  public  func- 
tionary, to  cause  a  war  between  two  nations.    A  declaration  cf  war  does 
not  take  place  until  the  olieuded  State  has  demanded  explanations,  and 
if  the    ct  has  been  committed  without  connivance  of  the  govern- 
[229]    ment — connivance  to  which  the  agent  belongs — *a8  soon  ah  that 
government  disavows  it,  it  is  improbable  that  war  will  result. 
From  this  it  follows,  and  we  are  confirmed  by  experience  that  article 
84,  although  intended  to  suppress  a  culpable  act,  must  remain  in  our 
laws  without  application.    But  it  would  have  been  otherwise  if  the 
I  legislators  had  modified  one  of  the  details  constituting  the  crime;  if 


!■: 


#!i 


12 


TKKATY    OF    WASHINGTON rAF'EKS    ACCOMPANYING 


111 
^1 


they  bad  confined  tliomselves  to  domaiiditig  tliat  the  hostile  acts  sliould 
be  of  a  nature  not  to  expose  tlio  State  to  a  dechiration  of  war,  but  to 
expose  it  to  simple  acts  of  hostility;  for  the  a^'jjressiona  which  are 
most  often  made,  either  on  the  frontier  between  the  border  iidiabitant«, 
or  in  the  sea  on  an  isolated  island,  may  provoke  acts  of  the  same  na- 
ture, but  not  a  d<'clarati()n  of  ^^ar.  it  mif^ht  be  objected  that  the  casp 
where  the  ajijir«*ssion  juovokes  hostilities  ajfainst  the  State  is  provided 
for  in  the  terms  of  article  8r».  This  would  be  ineorre«!t;  this  artido 
l)unishes  only  those  who  expose  the  Fr«Mich  to  the  danj^er  of  reprisals. 
Then  this  expression,  oi)posed  to  the  one  relative  to  the  acts  which  ex- 
pose the  State  to  war  in  article  84,  indicates  clearly  that  the  first  of 
these  articles  only  provided  for  reprisals  against  private  i)ersons,  an  I 
we  shall  presently  see  that  this  is  also  the  meanin<f  of  this  provision. 
The  hypothesis  now  remains  where  the  ajjjiiessiou  has  drawn  on  hos 
tilities  a<;ainst  the  country,  but  not  war  ;  but  this  hypothesis  does 
[2'.W\'  not  *enter  into  either  of  these  incriminations. 

What  do  we  understan<l  by  acts  which  expose  the  French  to 
reprisals?  31r.  Cainot  thinks  that  the  legislature  meant  outrages  and 
acts  of  violence  committed  against  the  subjects  of  a  foreign  nation.' 
In  fact,  since  these  acts  exi)ose  the  French  indivi<lually  only  to  repri- 
sals, and  not  society  at  large  in  France,  it  therefore  follows  that  in  the 
law  provision  is  made  for  the  offenses  of  individuals  only,  Nevertho 
less,  it  appears  necessary  to  us  that  the  reprisals  should  be  ordered  by 
the  foreign  government.  Neither  can  we  agree  with  j\[.  Hans  that  an 
insult  given  to  an  I'^nglishnmn  in  IJrussels  would  be  a  reason  for  apply- 
ing this  article,  biu^ause  lielgians  residing  in  London  might  be  exposed 
to  reprisals  even  beibre  any  decision  of  the  foreign  authorities  had  pro- 
nounced in  favor  of  reprisals.  Here  are  neither  the  acts  nor  the  repri- 
sals ha<l  in  view  by  the  law.  In  general,  it  intended  to  prevent  the  acts 
of  violence  and  the  depredations  against  a  friendly  territory  which 
[2'M\  might  take  place  on  the  frontiers  of  the  kingdom.  Un*doubtedly 
there  may  be  an  infinite  variety  of  such  acts  of  violence  ;  but 
they  must  be  so  aggravated  as  to  cause  danger  of  re[n'isals,  and  at  last, 
according  to  the  law  of  nations,  to  demand  the  intervention  of  a  for- 
eign power. 

In  the  application  of  these  two  articles  we  should  not  lose  sight  oi' 
the  fact  that  it  is  not  the  hostile  acts,  the  violence,  or  the  depredations 
that  the  law  punishes,  but  only  the  fact  of  having,  l,y  these  acts,  ex- 
posed the  state  to  the  danger  of  a  declaration  of  war,  or  the  French  to 
reprisals.-  The  law  was  meant  to  insure  peace  and  protect  the  national 
interests.  It  is  the  eventual  inji\ry  that  the  actions  may  produce  which 
forms  the  foundation  of  the  punisliment. 

Thus  the  criminality  is  not  in  the  intrinsic  gravity  of  the  acts,  but  in 
their  political  importance,  in  the  probabilities  of  war  or  reprisals  to 
which  they  have  given  rise  \  in  a  word,  in  the  political  agitation  which 
they  have  occasioned. 

The  provisions  here  made  have  been  rarely  applied;  it  is  important, 
however,  to  collect  carefully  the  cases  where  an  application  has  been 
made.  One  Hoquiu  (?)  captured  a  Sardinian  vessel  while  in  command 
of  a  Colombian  vessel,  accused  of  having  committed  a  hostile  act  which 
exposed  France  to  a  declaration  of  war  bv  Sardinia,  or,  at  least,  to  rc- 


i 


'  Article  I'M]  of  the  Prussian  code  reads  :  He  who  commits  outrages  on  subjects  of  i» 
forcifju  jtower,  even  outside  the  kingdom,  and  thus  exposes  Prussian  subjects  to  repri- 
sals on  the  part  of  the  foreign  government,  shall  be  punished  as  if  he  had  comnutte«l 
the  oft'ense  in  the  interior. 

■^Decree  of  cassation,  18  Jnne,  1824.     CBourg'iignon,  vol.  ;?,  p.  Til.) 


COUNTKR    CASK    OF    THE    UNITED   STATK8. 


13 


])nsal8  ;  lie  answered  that  this  act  vnjis  not  included  in  the  terms 
[232]  of  articles  84  *and  85,  and  that  besides  bein;;  coniinitled  in  a  for- 
eign country,  the  tribunals  ot  France  had  not  juris<liction.  The 
court  of  cassation  rejected  these  exceptions,  supporting  itself  by  saying 
that  the  criminality  provided  for  in  these  articles  was  simply  the  fact 
of  having  exposed  the  state  to  a  declaration  of  war,  or  the  French  to 
reprisals;  that  the  eventual  injury  w.as  what  brought  the  act  within  the 
category  of  articles  5,  C,  and  7  of  the  code  of  Inst.  (Jrim.,  referring  to 
French  tribunals;  and  liesides,  this  act  recognized  the  acts  provided  for 
and  punished  by  articles  84,  85.  From  this  opinion,  which  decided 
fundamentally  on  point  of  facts,  this  rule  follows  that  the  crimes  pro- 
vided for  in  these  articles  may  be  prosecuted  in  France  when  they  have 
been  committed  in  a  foreign  country,  and  come  under  the  provisions  of 
the  code  of  Crim.  Inst. 

A  second  case  of  a  kind  which  appears  to  be  likely  to  come  up  again, 
is  as  follows:  A  mob  of  tifty  Frenchmen  went  upon  Sardinian  territory, 
and  used  violence  against  the  foreign  post  of  customs  in  order  to  carry 
off  certain  objects  smuggled  into  Sardinia,  and  which  had  been  seized 
by  the  officers.  The  "  Chambred  accusation  "  of  the  royal  court  of  Gre- 
noble declared  that  these  acts  constituted  hostile  acts  not  approved  by 
government,  which  exposed  the  state  to  a  declaration  .of  war,  or,  at 
least,  acts  not  approved  by  government,  Avhich  exposed  the  French  to 
reprisals.  And  in  this  opinion  we  have  to  observe,  as  in  the 
[233]  *preceding  one,  that  the  judges  thought  it  necessary  to  use  a 
double  accusation  of  the  two  crimes  provided  for  in  articles  84 
and  85.  For  it  is.evident  that  the  first  accusation  has  little  chance  of 
success,  OH  account  of  the  too  restricted  wording  of  article  84.  The 
observation  which  we  made  above  is  thus  confirmed  by  practice. — (See 
also  Jurisprudence  of  Criminal  Codes,  by  AV.  Bourguignon,  3  vol.,  p.  86; 
Commentary  on  the  Penal  Code,  by  N.  Carnot,  2d  edition,  1  vol.,  p.  300 
etseq.;  Historical  Practical  Treatise  on  French  Criminal  Law,  by  M. 
Kauter,  1  vol.,  p.  418,  No.  287.) 


[234  J  »J). 

Dalloz,  Jfirisprudcncf  genemle,  tome  XXXIV,  repartir,  p.  1G80. 
DuvEBGiER,  Collection  des  loh,  etc.,  tome  25,  10-11  avril  1825.— Roi 
pour  la  surete  de  la  navigation  et  du  commerce  maritinie. 

Tit.  I.— Du  Crime  de  Piraterie. 

Art.  I.  Seront  poursuivis  et  juges  comme  pirates:  1"  Tout  individu 
faisaut  partie  de  Tequipoge  d'un  navire  on  batiment  de  mer  quelconque, 
arrae  et  naviguant  saus  etre  ou  avoir  ete  muni  pour  le  voyage  de  passe- 
port,  role  d'equipage,  commissions  ou  autres  actes  constatant  la  legiti- 
mitedel'expedition  ;  2"  Tout  commandant  il'un  navire  ou  batiment  de  mer 
arme  et  porteur  de  commissions  delivrees  par  deux  ou  plusieurs  puis- 
sances ou  i^tats  ditt'erents. 

II.  Serontpoursuiviset  juges  comme  pirates:  1' Tout  indivuiu  Aiisnnf 
partie  de  I'equipage  d'un  navire  ou  batiment  de  mer  fran^ais,  lequel 
coinmettrait,  a  main  armee,  des  actes  de  dei)redation  ou  de  violence,  soit 
euvers  des  navires  fran^'ais  oudes  navires  d'une  puissance  aveclaquelle 
hi.  France  ne  serait  pas  en  etat  de  guerre,  soit  envers  les  equipages  ou 
ciiargements  de  ces  navirei* ;  2'' Tout  individu  faisant  partie  de  I'equi- 
page d'un  navire  ou  batiment  de  mer  «Hrauger,  lequel,  hors  I'etat 
1 235]  de  guerre  et  sans  ctre  pourvu  de  lettres  de  marque  *ou  de  com- 
missions r«''guMeres,  commettrait  les  dits  actes  envers  des  navires 


14 


IKEATY    OF    WASHINOTON — PAI'KRM    ACCOMPANYING 


fratirais,  lenrs  ('quipages  ou  cluirj;«ineiits;  3"  Le  capitaiiic  ct  les  ollicicrs 
do  tout  iia\  ire  on  batimcnt  <le  iner  <iuelcoii<|ne  qui  aurait  ('(>mnii.s  (1(  s 
uctos  (riiostilitr  sous  un  pavilion  autre  que  celui  de  l'«'tat  dout  il  auiiiit 
comuiission. 

III.  Seront  t'fjaleinont  poursuivi.s  et  jujjt'S  comme  pirates:  1°  Tout 
Fran^aisou  naturalise  Frau(;ais  qui,  sans  I'autorisatioii  du  roi,  prendrait 
coniniission  d'une  puissance  «'5tranj?ero  pour  coininander  un  naviro  ou 
Vatinient  d<;  iner  arnie  en  course;  2"  Tout  Frun(*ui8  ou  naturalise  Fran- 
rais  qui,  ayant  obtenu,  metne  aveo  I'autorisation  dn  roi,  comnnssion  d'une 
puissance  etran<;ere  pour  <!oininander  un  navire  ou  batiinent  do  nu'v 
arnie,  comnu'ttrait  des  actes  d'hostilit*;  euvers  des  navires  fran(;ais,  leurs 
equipajj^es  on  char};enients. 

IV.  Seront  encore  poursuivia  et  juges  coniine  pirates :  1°  Tout  individu 
faisant  partie  de  re(juii)aj;e  d'un  navire  on  batinient  de  mer  francais  (pii, 
j)ar  Iraude  ou  viokMute  euvers  le  capitaine  ou  eonnnandant,  s'eniparerait 
du  dit  batinient:  '2°  Tout  individu  faisant  partie  de  Tequipage  d'un 
navire  ou  batinient  de  mer  iVan<;ais  qui  le  livrerait  a  des  pirates  on  a 
reiineini. 


[23(>] 


[IV, 


.      atioii.] 


Dalloz,  (iencral  rlurispnidcnce,  vol.  xxxiv,  p.  1<>.SU  r^  srr/. 
DuvEKCiKii,  Cothrtionof  LawH,  ^:c.,  vol.  2."i;  10,  11,  April,  ISL'.j. 
for  the  safety  of  niaritiine  navigation  and  couiineree. 

TITLE  I. — Tino  cuniE  of  pi  racy.- 


Law 


Art.  1.  To  be  prosecuted  and  convicted  as  pirates:    1.  Every  iiidi 
vidual  f(uinin<;  part  of  the  crew  of  any  armed  shij),  or  vessel  whatever, 
.sailinjf  without  passport,  manifest,  coniniission,  or  other  papers  sliowinn' 
the  le^^ality  of  the  voyage.     2.  Every  commander  of  armed  vessel  carry 
ing  the  commissions  of  two  or  more  ditferent  powers  or  states. 

2.  To  be  prosecuted  and  convicted  as  pirates:  1.  Every  indi vidua! 
forming  part  of  the  crew  of  a  French  vessel,  which  has  by  force  com 
mitted  acts  of  tlepredation  or  violence,  either  against  French  vessels  or 
those  of  a  power  with  which  France  is  not  in  state  of  war,  (y  their  crews, 
or.cargoes.  2,  Every  individual  belonging  to  the  crew  of  jMiy  foreign 
vessel  that  commits  the  sai«l  acts  against  French  vessels,  their  crews  oi- 
cargoes,  there  being  no  war  between  th(>  countries  at  the  time,  and  the 
vessel  not  being  provided  with  letters  of  niar(iue  or  regular  commissions. 
3.  The  captain  and  otticers  of  any  vessel  whatever  which  shall  have 
committed  acts  of  hostility  under  the  flag  of  a  country  other  than  that 
of  the  state  whose  commission  it  carries. 

3.  Also  to  be  iirosecuted  and  convicte<l  aspirates:  1.  Every  French- 

man, or  naturalized  Frenchman,  who,  without  the  authorization 
[237]    of  the  King,  shall  take  a  commission  *from  a  foreign  power  to 

command  an  armed  vessel.  2.  I'hery  Frenchman,  or  naturalized 
Frenchman,  who,  having  obtained  a  commission  from  a  foreign  power  to 
command  an  armed  vessel,  even  with  the  authorization  of  the  King, 
shall  commit  acts  of  hostility  against  French  vessels,  their  crews,  or 
cargoes. 

4.  Also  to  be  prosecuted  and  convicted  as  pirates :  1.  Every  individual 
forming  part  of  the  crew  of  a  French  vessel,  that,  by  fraud  or  violence 
toward  the  captain,  shall  have  obtained  possession  of  the  said  vessel. 
2.  Every  individual  forming  part  of  the  crew  of  a  French  vessel  that 
shall  have  given  it  up  to  pirates,  or  the  enemy. 


niois 


|2.'5!ll 


COUNTER   CASK   OP   THE    UNITED    STATES. 


15 


[2H8] 


•No.  2.— THE  ARMAN  CONTRACT. 


E 


Comulfation  de  M.  Bcrryer. 

L'ancien  .avoctit  Houssigiu!,  vu  lo  ineinoirci  a  consulter  pivsont*'  au 
nom  till  gouveriKMuent  ties  ritats-Uiiis  d'Ainoricnio,  ensomblo  les  |)i(V,os 
justiflcatives  qui  y  soiit  jointes,  (161ib«irant  Hiir  las  tiiicstions  qui  lui 
sont  aoninisea,  est  d'avis  des  resolutions  suivantos  : 

Do  I'exposi'i  coiitcnu  dans  le  mernoire  X  cousultiT,  ot  dos  documents 
(jui  I'accryinpaffiient,  ivsulto  la  preuvo  complete  des  faits  <iii'il  iinporto 
tl'abord  de  lesiuner. 

Vai  IHOl,  au  mois  de  fdJvrier,  plusieurs  etats  dn  sud  de  I'Amerique 
Sopteiitrionale,  rej^ie  alors  i)ar  la  (Umstiiutloti  jVih'rale  dex  /Jtttts-Unis, 
re.solureiit  de  se  sepaier  des  I'itats  dii  nord,  et  se  n'Mniirent  (mi  iiii 
coniires  pour  constituer  le  gouvcrnement  dcs  I'Jtats-Cou/rdn'rs  d\\in<'ri<inc. 
La  guene  entie  ies  coiiIVmU'ivs  «^t  le  gouvonienioiit  lederal  eelata  «lansle 
iiKiis  d'avril. 

All  10  juin,  do  la  inrnieaiiiK'-e,  i)arut  <lans  la  partio  oftioielle  du 
[LV50J    Mnnitcur  niie    d<''claiation  *soumise  par  le  niliiistre  des  afl'aires 
(•tiaii<;»'res  a  l'Eiii[)ereur  des  Fraueais  et  revetue  de  sou  approba- 
tion. 

Par  cet  acte  solennel,  ri'llnipereur,  ]»renant  en  consid<''ration  IVtat  de 
paix  qui  oxiste  entro  la  France  et  Ies  Et(tt.s-Unis  <r.4j«f'/iV/M<', resolut  de 
maintenir  nne  stricte  neutralito  dans  la  Intte  eiiKayt'oentre  le  <;ouverne- 
ment  de  VUnion  qX  Ies  t'tats  qui  pretendent  former  une  conlederatiou 
particuiiere,  declare,  'Mitro  autres  dispositions: 

:U'.  II  ((st  iiitoulit  11  tout  Franviiis  do  ihcikIic  coitunission  tin  I'niio 

(li's  (ItMix  |i;iiti<'s  jxMir  iirincr  <lc.s  vaissoiiiix  (1»»  j^iicrii!  .  .  .  tin  do  ooiHutuiir,  d'mio 
iimiiit  ro  (|iu'l(;<)ii((iio,  a  rtMjiiipoiiieiit  on  I'aniiciiitMit  d'lin  iiuvirr  do  i^iiorro  on  cor.sairo 
tie  I'uiio  di^s  paitios, 

")".  Jios  Fruiicais  rosidant  en  Fiance  on  a  IV'tranjier  devront  t'ufale- 

meiit  s'altstenir  do  tout  I'ait  <|ui,  ooiuiuis  on  violation  dcs  lois  do  r<'ni|>inM)u  du  droit 
dcH  <(ons,  ponrrait  etro  considi'Te  eonnn<^  nn  acto  hostiiu  a  I'liuo  dt^s  deux  pavtit's  ot 
foiitrairo  a  la  neutralito  ((uo  nous  avons  lesolu  d'adoi)toi-. 

La  declaration  imperiale  se  termine  eu  cos  terme.s: 

f'JIO]  lji'S(!ontreveiiantsanxd<-fonse,sot  ro<'oinnian*dat  ions  con  tonnes  dans  la  presen  to 
(Iccliivation  seront  ponrsnivis,  s'il  y  a  lien,  eontbrmenient  anx  tlispositionsdo  la  loi 
<lu  10  aviil  Irt'i"),  etanx  articles  H4  et  H.')  du  Code  i»cnal,  sans  ])rcjudieo  d(}  ['application 
(pi'il  ponnait  y  avoir  lien  dt;  fairti  aux  dits  contrevenaiits  do.s  dispositions  de,  raiticlo 
yi  du  Code  Napoleon  et  des  articles  (>.")  et  suivants  du  dtkiet  du  24  mars  1852  BUi'  la 
marine  niaicliande,  '.\\'.\  ot  suivants  du  ('ode  penal  pour  I'aiinco  do  nier. 

iMaIp,recetto  declaration  publique  de  la  neutrnlito  de  la  France,  mal^re 
Ies  proiiibitions  ibrmelles  <pi'ollo  prononce  contormement  aux  rej?les  du 
droit  des  gens  et  aux  dispositions  speciales  des  lois  francaises,  une  con- 
vention a  ete  conclue  le  15  avril  18(i.'J,  entre  M.  Lucien  Annan,  con- 
structeur  maritime  a  Bordeaux,  et  lo  capitaine  James  Dunwoody  Bul- 
lock, Americain,  agent  du  gouvernement  des  etats-confederes  du  sud, 
stipulant  dans  cet  acte  d''ordre  ct  pour  compte  den  mandats  qu'il  ne  fait 
pas  connaitre,  et  dont,  eatil  dit,  il  a  produit  Ies  pouvoirs  en  regie.  Pour 
I'execntiou  du  traite,  M.  Bullock  elit  domicile  cbez  1^1.  Erlanger,  banquier, 
a  Paris. 

Par  ce  traitt',  M.  Arman  "  s'eugage  a  construire  quatre  bateaux  a 
vapeur  de  quatre  cent  chevaux  de  iorce  et  disposes  a  recevoir  un  arme- 

ment  de  dix  a  douze  canons." 
[241]       *ll  est  stipule  que  M.  Arman  construira  dans  ses  cliantiers  a 

Bordeaux  deux  de  ces  navires,  «t  conjiera  a  M.  Voruz  Vexecution 
flea  deux  autres  navires,  qui  seront  construits  siinultanement  dans  Ies  chan- 
tiers  de  Nantes. 


16 


TItKATY    OF    \VAsHlNr;rON I'APKKS    ^CCOMI'ANYINC 


Pour  (h'^uiscr  la  tU'stinsttion  de  ccs  qiiiitiv  navin»s.  il  est  ocrit  daiiH 
Vactc   (|»i'ils    «loiv»'iit  itn'    con.Hacre.s  :i   *Mtal>lir    uim'    coiniiumicatioii 
iV'j;uli('ie  cntiv  Hlianj;  liaf,  V«'«lu,  et  J>an  Fraiitisco,  j>aMsaiit  par  lo  d(i 
troit  <h^  Van  Diriiu'ii,  ft  aiifw«i  qu'ils  iloivcnt  etre  propros,  si  le  cas  ne 
pii'Sfiito,  i'l  rtre  vt'inlus,  s«»it  a  IVinpin*  ehiiiois,  soil  a  IV'iiipire  dii  Japon." 

Kiiilii  M.  l>ull(M;k  .sViiga;;*'  a  fain*  coiiiiaitre  aux  constructeiirs  la  maisoti 
tie  baiupu*  qui  sera  rharj»«'t'  dVflVcliUT  a  Paris  \e  )><)<cmont  du  prix  dc 
cliaruii  d«5  «!t'.s  iiavirt's,  \'\\t\  ji  la  sonime  de  1,.S<K),(KM)  francs. 

liC  1"^  jnin  suivant,  M.  Arman,i»ourseeonf«>rnu'ra  I'ordonnance  royale 
du  12  jnilU't  1847,  adrosHii  a  M.  lo  Diini.stre  de  la  marine  la  demandc 
d^ine  autorisation  de  inunir  d'un  aruenient  de  douzea  quatorzc  canons, 
<k'  .'JO,  quatre  navires  a  vajn-ur  en  haxs  et  fer,  en  construction,  deux  dam 
.sen  chanticrs  a  Bordeaux,,  un  vhe:  J/ J/.  Jollet  if  llabin  a  Nanten,  un  che: 
M.  Dubigeon  a  NantiH. 

"Ces  navires,''  est-il  dit  dans  la  letire  adresst'-e  an  ministre,  "sont  des 

tines,  par  un  armateur  t'frani/er,  a  faire  le  service  des  luers  <le  Chine 

[242]    et  du  Pacitique  entre  'la  Chine,  le  Japon,  et  San  Francisco. 

Lour  aruienient  si»ecial  a  en  outre  |K)ur  but  d'en  permettre  even 

tuellement  la  veute  aux  gouvernemeuts  de  Chine  et  du  Japon. 

"  Les  canons  seront  executi-.-i  par  le.s  soins  de  M.  Voruz  aiue,  de  Nantes." 

La  lettre  de  M.  Arniau  .se  teriuiue  en  ce.s  mots: 

.  .  .  .  Le8  eoiiHtriiction.H  otant  d»'j:»  entrepriises  dfpiiis  le  15  avril  dernier,  jo  prie 
votre  ex<'«'ll«nce  «le  vouloir  bit'ii  accordt-r  le  plus  t«'>t  |)o.s.sild«  a  M.  Voruz  I'uutorisatioii 
que  jo  8ollicit<)  et  que  pre.scrit  I'ordoun.ince  royale  du  12  jiiillet  1H47. 

Sur  cet  expose,  et  pour  la  destination  supiH).s«'*e  dcs  quatre  navirea, 
Tautorisation  Int  accordeo  par  M.  le  ministre  de  la  marine  des  le  6  juiu, 
ainsi  qu'elle  etait  demandee  par  M.  Armau. 

Le  memejour,  6  juin  18«J.'},  M.  Slidell,  autre  ajjent  du  gouvernement 

des  etats-confederes,  adres.sait  a  M.  Arnian  la  lettre  suivante: 

En  consequence  de  Tautori-tation  oiini»t<^rielle  que  vous  m'avez  moutree,  et  que  jo 
juge  ButtiHaute,  le  traito  du  U>  avril  devient  obligatoire. 

Trois  jours  apres,  le  0  juin,  M.  Erlanger,  banquier  a  Paris,  chez  qui 
M.  Bullock  avait  pris  domicile  dans  le  traitf  du  15  avril,  et  qui  devai 
garantir  les  paiements  anx  coustructeurs,  ecrivait  a  M.  Armau : 

[24:$]       *Jo  m'engage  ii  vous  garantir  les  deux  premiers  paiements  des  navires  que  vous 
coustruisez  pour  les  confedt'-rcs.  muyennant  uae  commission,  etc. 

Les  conditions  financieres  proi>os«^s  par  M.  Erlanger  furent  accepteea 
par  M.  Arman,  qui,  le  nieme  jour,  le  9  juiu.  adressa  a  M.  Voruz,  A 
Nantes,  le  telegramme  suivant : 


A  M.  Vtujuz,  Grand  Hotel,  I'arin  : 
J'ai  sigue,  sans  moditicatiun,  la  lettre  a  Erlanger  :  elle  e«>t  au  courrier. 


ARMAN. 


De  son  c«>te,  M.  Erlanger  ecnvai..  .^^ous  la  meme  date,  a  Mr.  Voruz,  ii 
Nantes : 

Voici  les  lettres  d'engagemeuts,  •.-  coutrat  et  la  copie.  Comme  vous  babitez  sous 
le  meme  toil  que  le  cajyitaine  BuUork,  vous  aurrz  peut-etre  robligeance  de  lui  faire  sigiiiu' 
la  copie  du  contrat.    J'ai  ^crit  directement  a  M.  Arman.     Kecevez,  etc. 

Le  lendemain,  10  juin,  M.  Arman  adressait  a  M.  Voruz  uue  lettre  aiuisi 
con^'ue : 

Cheh  Moxsieuk  Vorcz  :  Je  vous  accuse  nx-eption  de  votre  lettre  chargee  du  0,  et  du 

mandat  de  Bullock  de  7iiO,(XM)  fr.,  qui  i^tait  inclus.     Je  mVmpresse  de  vous  donnerdr- 

cliarge,  ainsi  quo  vous  le  desirez,  de.s  pit-ces  que  vo'is  avez  siguf'-e.**  aux  mains  de  M. 

Bullock  pour  le  premier  paiement  de»  dtifx  marires  de  4(Xi  rheraiix,  que  Je  conbiru-i* 

[244]  pour  le  compte  des  conft^ere'x  'simi^tanrment  avec  ceux  que  vous  faites  coustruiro 

par  MM.  Jollet  et  Babiu,  et  Dubigeon 

Je  vous  prie  de  faire  en  .sorte  d'obteuir  de  M.  Bnllook  la  i<roint'sse  di^  nous  rembour- 


INCJ 


Cnl'MKK'    CVSi;    or    THK    IMTKI)    STATKS. 


17 


*t  ocrit  (liiiis 
iiiiiiitiicntioii 
it  par  lo  d(i 
I,  si  Ic  Ci^s  s«' 

0  (111  Japon." 
ii'M  la  inaJHori 
t  (111  prix  (Ic 

nance  royale 
la  (k'luauile 
orzo  canoDM, 
m,  deux  dam 
ntes,  un  che: 

»,  "Hont  dew- 
erHdeCliine 

1  Francisco, 
mettre  even 
un. 

,  dc  Nantes." 


tiernier,  jo  prio 
I.  rutitorimitiun 

itre  navirea, 
Ics  le  6  juiu, 

invernement 
:e: 

tree,  et  que  jo 

["is,  chez  qui 
t  qui  devai 
.  Armau : 

vires  qae  vou» 

it  acceptees 
I.  Voruz,  A 


ARM  AN. 
r.  Voniz,  tl 

s  habitez  sous 
ui  fliire  siguiu' 

lettre  aiusi 


ij;»>e  du9, etilii 
•lis  rtoiinerdr- 
:  niiiina  tic  M. 

lie  Jf   COIIHXriM 

ti's  construiro 
ions  reiuboiir- 


Hit  riiiin  lie  innij)!"  tlf<.  (•Miiinptt"'!  (Ii 
ri'vi'/.  ftc. 


i;ir;iiitir  i|iii' iiMii>.   paytilirt  ii  M.  luliiii^fi-r.      Re- 


I>*aiitn>  part.  MM.  .lollct  cr   liiihiii,  et  I)iil»ij;von   flls,  <'liarj;i'H  d«-  la 
ronstnictioii,  dans  h-nrs  cliiuiticrs  ;i  Niintcs,  dc  dciivdcs  ([iiatrc  naviivs, 
.linsi  (pril  C.St  dit  dans  I;i  Iv'^tic  adrosscc  Ic  1'    Jiiiii  par  Mr.  Annan  a  M. 
Ic  mini.strc  do  la  niarin*-,  <M.'ri\aicn(,  Ic  10  dii  nicine  niois,  a  M.  ^'onlz•. 

Mmn  Ciii.ii  \'i)iti/.:  Apics  .niiii  pris  lonnaissiincii  ilc^.  coiKlifioiis  liiiaiii'ii'res  <|iii 
.oils  out  t'tt'  faitf.s  par  la  maiMiui  hlilaii;;*'!',  :iinsi  (|iii-  ilcs  Icttrt's  iiitiTvi'mu-s  ciitrt'  voiis 
ftr  MM.  Sli(l«'ll  ct  Hniloik,  lions  vtiKniH  \(iiis  rappi  li-r  iios  coiivt'iitiiuis  v»'iliali«s,  aliii 
ill'  Wit'ii  |ir<'rist'i'  iioM  in).>.itii'n-  rc,s|MMtivcs  ilaiis  I'littf  allairc. 

l>'antrcs  piT.sonnes,  avcc  cnticre  connaissance  «lc  la  vt'-ritablc  destina- 
tion dc  CCS  constructions  ct  dc  ccs  arnicnicnt.sniaritiuics,  dcvaicnt  prcn  - 
(ir«'  uncpart  notable  dans  Ics  Iti'Mu'-ticcs  dc  l'op«''iation  ct  supporter  pro - 
|u»iti«)ncllcincnt  Ics  csconiptcs  dc  garantic  stipules  en  tavciir  dc  M.  Kr  - 
laiifjcr.  C'cst  pour  .s'cntciulrc  sur  ce  <lcrnicr  objct  que  "SI.  ifcnri 
]'J1.'»]  Anions  Kivierc.  n«'f>o(!iant  a  Nant«'s,  ecrivait  di's  *le  8  Juiu  a  M. 
N'oruz  air.!' : 

I, a  •■(•initliration  tiiiaiifi.'ic  Hiirvomic  aiiioiinriiiii  ilaii?.  liillairi'  tlout  Ic  (M)iitrat  a  6\6 
■1  siyiif  If  I.')  aviil  ilfiiiicr  fiitic  Al.  Annan,  voiim  if  U\  caiiitainr  Bullock,  motive  la  pro- 
'/<   |H(Niti<in  i|n«>  ji"  vii-ns  vuiis  Hininn'tti'is. 

.MM.  Mazcliuc  et  (■',  du  tlavrc,  ctaicut charyt'cs  dc  la  coutcotiou  dcs 

iuachines  a  vapeur  pour  Ics  (piatrc  iiavires  a  helice,  dont  les  coques  .so 

jronstruisaicut  «lans  les  clianticrs  dc  IJordeaux  et  dc  Nantes.  Mais  igno- 

I  riiient-ils  la  veritable  destination  dc  ces  batirucnts  dc  guerre  lor.s(iu'ils 

♦  rrivaient  a  M.  \'oruz  aine,  le  2.'i  juiu  18(W  I 

MoNsiKi'ii:    Hii  }niri  f,iiii)it.\\  ya  i|neli(iii'H  jiiiirs, /(    miiiiln'  /)^''/^)('A•,  etc.,  nons  avons 
!oiiiis.  voii.s  ft  noils. ilf  reilrfSM'r  iiuo  tn'riMir  ile  tliiiieiiHioti  ties  iiiacliiiii's,  etc.     Nous  vou.s 
ijirioiis  ilf  nous  I'-fi-irf  inio  i '-s  dcrnicii's  mcsiii'fs,  (jiii  nuiil  I'ti  voihitniilion,  .sont  bieti  celled 
(Kiivcniifs  f litre  noiis. 

Tout  etait  done  jiui  t'aitenient  couccrte  entre  les  divers  participaut.s 
[)our  l'cx<''C'ution  du  rraiti-  pa.s.siHe  15  avril  ISIJ;?  entre  M.  xVnuan,con- 
structeur  fraiieais.  et  M.  Ic  capitaine  Bullock.  Ce  trait*'  a  «'t«'  expre.s.sc- 
iiient  ratific  par  M.  81idell,  agent  diploiuati(pic  <les  ctatsconfedercs, 
.suivant  .sa  lettre  adress«'e  a  M.  Armau  le  (5  juiu  ISO.'J. 

Les  autori.siitiousiniui.stericllcsexigecs  parla  lui  I'raueai.se  pour 
I  J4»>i  la  construction  ct  rarniemeut  *de.s  batimeuts  dc  guerre  out  ct«''.iic- 
eordees,  radininistratiou  a.yautsau.sdoutc  et«'*abus«'e  par  lapretcn- 
ii;ic  fle.stinatiou  <|u'un  lo-tunteiir  I'tydnr/eriltiviiitdouucv  i\  ces  uavircs  de 
guerre  daiis  k\s  niers  de  Chine  ct  du  l*aciti<pie,  et  par  la  condition  t*veutu- 
elledeles  vendrcaux  gou\  ernments  de  Chine  ou  du  Japon.  3Iais  leur  des- 
rinatiouvcritablcpour  le  service  des  «''tatsbellig«'aautsdu  sudest  partaitc- 
lucntconnue  de  tons  les  interes.ses.  Les  constructions  des  vais.seaux,  de 
(curs  machines,  de'leurs  armemeuts,  sont  en  pleine  activite.  Le.s  paic- 
nicuts, garantis  aux  cou.structeuis  par  uue  mai.sou  de  banque  puissaate, 
sont  en  partie  etfectu»'s. 

L^iie  seconde  operation  doit  avoir  lieu.  Le  14  Juillet  LSC),  M.  Voruz 
aine,  ccrivant  de  Paris  a  son  tils,  M.  Anthony,  lui  anuonce  que  le  capi- 
taine Bullock  et  M.  Armnu  sont  partis  la  veillepour  Bordeaux,  ainsj  que 
-M.  Kriauger,  banqnier,  et  qu'il  s'agit  d'un  traite  pourdes  natures  hlindes. 
Kn  meine  temps  il  lui  dit  qu'une  affaire  est  faite  avec  un  sieur  Blakeley, 
■ondeur  anglais,  pour  la  fourniture  de  48  pieces  de  canon  avec  200  bou- 
'ets  i)ar  piece.  "Le  niarchc,"  ditil,  "  est  fait  d'une  mauiere  qui  nous  as- 
«sure  la  fourniture  exclusive  de  tout  ce  qui  povrra  efre  execute  en 
France." 

Le  15  juillet,  le  mcme  M.  Voruz,  en  rappelant  a  M.  le  miuistre 
I -47j    de  la  marine  que,  par  *sa  lettre  en  date  du  0  juin,  11  a  bien  voulu 
2  a. II 


II 


18 


TRKATY    OF    WASHINGTON — PAPERS    ACCOMPANYING 


I'antoriser  s\  cxc'-cuter,  dans  ses  nsiiies  a  Nantes,  les  canons  neces- 
Kaires  a  I'arinemont  de  (jnatre  navires,  dont  deux  sont  en  comtrKction  a 
Bordeaux^  dans  Ics  chanticrs  de  M.  Arman,  et  deux  dans  les  cJututiers  dc 
Nantes,  demaiide  au  mini.stre  "  la  permission  de  visiter  I'etablissemeut 
da  gouvernemeut  a  Ruelle,  pour  avoir  les  ameliorations  ettectuees  dans 
l'outillage,"etc.  Cette  permission  fnt  accordee  le  0  aout. 

Une  nonvelle  convention  est  sigiioe  doable  a  Bordeaux  le  10  juillel 
18G3: 

Eatre  M.  Arniaii,  cotistnictenr  maritime  i\  Bordeaux,  dispute  an  Corps  l(^)jislatif,  qnai 
de  la  Mouiiaie,  6,  et  M.  James  Uunwoody  Biilloek,  agiasant  d'ordre  et  pour  coinpto  de 
iiiandants  dont  11  a  jirodiiit  les  ponvoirs  eu  nyle,  <51isant  domicile  chez  M.  M.  fimile 
Erlauger,  rue  de  la  Cbauss-^e  d'Aiitin,  21,  a  Paris,  ont  etc  arrctos  les  conventions 
Huivautes: 

Art.  I".  M.  Arman  s'engage  envers  M.  Bnllock,  qui  I'accepte,  ii  constrnire  pour  son 
compte,  dans  ses  chantiers  de  Btrdeaux,  deux  biltinjentrfi  Ix^lices  a  vapeur,  a  coipie  bois 
et  fer,  tie  liOO  cbevanx  de  force,  a  deux  bdlices,  avec  deux  blockhann  blindcs,  coutbrnus 
au  plan  aecepte  par  M.  Bullock. 

[248]       'Aiir. '.{.  Resteront  seuls  a  la  cliarj^e  de  XI.  Ibillock  les  canons,  los  amies,  lis 
projectiles,  les  poudres,  le  combustible  et  eutiu  les  salaires  et  les  vivres  de  reqiii- 

pa  gc. 

»  »  • »  »  #  #  * 

Ai{  r.  5.  Les  bi'.timents  seroiit  munis  d'une  machine  a  vapeur  de  1500  clievaux  de  force. 
«le  200  kilogrammes  It;  ebeval,  a  condensation,  constriiite  par  M.  Mazeline  dn  Havre. 
Aur.  ().  Les  deux  nr.vires  devront  etre  admis  et  prets  a  faire  leurs  essais  dans  uti 

d«''lai  de  dix  niois. 

#  ■*  #  *  >     '  *  ^ 

Akt.  9.  Lo  prix  de  cliacnn  de  ces  navires  est  tixe  a  la  souinie  do  deux  millions  dt 
francs,  qui  sera  payee  a  I'aris  iiu  cinqieme  coniptaut. 

Aht.  11.  M.  Bullock  a  design^  la  maison  fi.  ErlangiT  et  C'"',  comme  etant  cliargec 
d'etfectuer  les  paiements  a  Paris  et  devaut  accepter  ks  clauses  liuaucieres  du  present 
trait<^. 

Le  17  juillet,  M.  Voruz  ainc  ecrit : 

Je  refois  aujonrd'lini  une  lettre  'I'Arnous,  de  Bordeaux,  qui  me  dit  qu'Arnuvn  vient 
de  signer  lo  marcbd  pour  deux  canouui(;res  bliudees,  de  'MO  cbevaux  de  force,  pour  dtiux 
millions  cbaque. 

Eafin,  le  12  aout,  M.  Bullock,  reste  charge,  par  Particle  3  du  traite  du 
10  juillet  ci-dessus,  des  canons,  des  armes,  des  projectiles,  etc., 
[24*9]    pour  les  deux  cauonnieres  blindees,  adressait  a  M.  Voruz  *la  let- 
tre suivante : 

LiVKiU'OOL,  12  aoiit  1863. 

J'ai  refu,  M.  Voruz,  votre  lettre,  du  4  courant,  avec  lea  indications  de  prix  dn  canon 
de  150,  et  de  ses  accessoires.  II  ne  m'est  pas  possible  de  dire  si  je  vous  donnerai  un 
ordre  positif  et  direct  pcnir  de  semblables  canons  avant  d'avoir  ap])ris  du  capitaine 
Blakeley  comment  I'aftaire  de  son  propre  models  de  canon  ceroid  lY  dtd  comprise.  Je 
serais  cependant  cbarind  de  traiter  une  affaire  avec  vons,  si  nous  pouvous  nous  accordci 
sur  les  conditions.    Nous  discuterons  tout  cela  qnand  j'irai  a  Nantes. 

II  est  dans  mes  intentions  de  confier  mes  affaires  h  aussi  pen  de  mains  que  possible, 
et  j'espfcre  que  ncms  tomberous  d'accord  snr  tons  les  points  essentiels.  de  telle  sorte  que 
1108  relatione  pourront  prendre  vne  plus  grande  extension  meme  en  cae  de  paix.  Notre 
gouvernement  aura  besoin,  sans  doiite,  pendant  un  certain  temps,  de  s'adresaer  en  Frame  pour 
la  construction  de  ses  vaisseaiix  et  viachin^s,  et,  pour  ce  qui  me  concerne  persounellement, 
je  aeraia  euchautd  que  les  rapports  que  j'ai  ewa  avec  vona  voua  amenaaatnt  poui' 
I'avenir  ii  dea  commandea  plus  considdrablea  encore.  Veuillez,  s'il  voua  plait,  m'in- 
former  si  lea  corvettea  avaucent  et  me  dire  quand  lea  aecouda  paiements  seront  dus. 
Je  voua  dcrirai  une  aemaiue  avaut  mon  arrivde  u  Nantea. 

BULLOCK. 

1 250]  *Le8  termes  de  cette  lettre  s'appliquent  evidemnient  au  projet 
d'armement  des  deux  cauonnieres  biindees,  dont  la  construction 
a  ete  I'objet  du  traits  pass^  il  Bordeaux,  le  10  juillet,  entre  MM.  Ar- 
man et  Bullock.  Ce  dernier,  capitaiue  au  service  de  la  confederation  des 
etats  du  sud,  a  agi  d'ordre  et  pour  compte  de  son  gouvernement.    11  u'est 


G 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    THE    IXITED    STATES. 


W 


(lis  neces- 
Htruction  h 
kitittiers  (/r 
jlissemeut 
uees  (laus 

1 10  juillet 


gislatif,  quai 

ir  coiiipto  (le 

M.  M.  Cmilf 

conventions 

lire  ponr  son 
a  cociue  bois 
M,  coutoinu's 


OS  ainicH,  lis 
'res  de  lV(iui- 


•anx  <le  force. 
!  (In  Havre. 

isuis  dans  uu 


X  millions  (it 


taut  eliiirgee 
L'.t  du  present 


Annan  vient 
ce,  pour  deux 

u  traite  du 
?ctiles,  etc., 
>ruz  *la  Ict- 

•  aoiit  1863. 

)rix  du  cunnn 

donnerai  nn 

du  capitaine 

oaiprise.    Je 

U0U3  accorder 

que  possible, 
elle  eorte  que 
paix.  Noire 
n  Frame  ponr 
ounellement, 
nasstnt  pour 
a  plait,  m'in- 
H  ^eront  dus. 

ULLOCK. 

;  au  projet 
Dustructioft 
e  MM.  Ar 
eration  des 
■it.    11  u'est 


a? 


pas  possiMe  de  mt'connaitre  quo  ces  deux  caiionnitTcs  soiit,  ainsi  que  los 
quatie  navires  pour  lesquels  uvait  etecouclu  le  uiarche  du  loavril  pre- 
cedeut,  destinee.s  au  service  des  etats-conlederes  du  sud  dans  la  guerre 
((u'ils  soutieunent  centre  les  etats  fedt^'raux  de  I'Amerique  du  Nord. 

La  preuve  materielle  de  ces  foits  re.sulte  trop  evideiument  des  conven- 
tions passees  entre  les  diverses  personnes  qui  out  participe  a  leur  reali- 
sation, et  de  la  correspondance  «^eliar.gee  entre  elles  jwur  le  reglemeut 
de  leurs  iuterets  particuliers.  Les  faits  sont  de  la  plus  haute  gravite. 
Kxpressement  interdits  il  tons  les  Fran^ais  par  la  declaration  iiuperialo 
du  10  Juin  1801,  ils  constituent  de  tlagruntes  violations  des  principesdu 
droit  des  gens  e;  des  devoirs  imposes  aux  sujets  de  toute  puissance  neu- 
tre,  devoirs  dont  racconiplisseinent  loyal  est  la  premiere  garantie  du 

respect  du  a  la  liberte  des  etats  neutres  et  li  la  dig'ute  de  leurs 
j2r)l]    *pavillons.     Ce  sont  la  des  actes  de  manife.ste  hostilite  contre 

I'une  des  deux  ]>arties  belligerantes  a  1  Vgard  des<p\elles  le  gou- 
veriienient  francais  a  rr.solu  de  maiuteuir  une  stricte  ucutralite. 

H  iaut  {'v'ltcT  (dit  Vattel,  livre  3,  cliapitre  7)  de  conlbndro  ce  qui  est  permis  il  une  na- 
ti(Ui  libre  de  tout  enjja<;enieut,  avec  ce  qu'elle  pent  faire  si  elle  j)n'teud  etre  tniitee 
(■online  parfaiteinent  neutro  dans  une  {guerre.  Tant  qu'nii  peuple  ueutre  veut  jouir 
si'irenient  de  cet  etat,  il  doit  nioiitrer,  en  tout(;s  clioses,  une  exacte  inipartialite  entre 
ceux  ([ui  fni  font  la  j^uerre;  ear,  s'il  fjivorise  I'un  au  prejudice  de  Tantre,  ii  ne  pourra  pas 
se  plaiudre  ([iiand  celui-ei  le  traiteracouiuie  aliereut  et  associe  de  son  enneini.  La  neii- 
tralite  serait  une  neutralite  fiauduleu.se,  dont  personne  ne  vent  etre  la  dupe. 
'  Cette  inipartialite,  (ajoute  Vatttl,)  qii'nn  peuple  neutre  doit  gaider,  coinpiend  deux 
(•hoses:  1"  ne  ])oint  doiiner  do  secours,  ne  fournir  libreinent  ni  troupes,  ni  amies,  ni 
munitions,  ni  rieii  ile  ce  (jul  .sert  directenient  i";  li  guerre. 

Ce  sont  liT  des  actes  d'hostilite  (pii,  rt'prouv«''s  par  le  droit  des  gens, 
sont  caracterises  crimes  et  dolits  ])ar  les  lois  iVau(;ai.ses,  (jui  en  pronou- 
cent  la  repression  ])enale. 

L'article  84  du  Code  penal  est  ainsi  conc-u: 

['2.")'2]      (jiiiiconque  aura,  i)ar  des  actions  liostil''s,  uon-approu'vc'-es  par  le  gouverue- 
ineiit,  exjiost'^  I'etat  a  une  declaration  de  guerre,  sera  piiui  du  liannissenieut ;  et, 
SI  la  guerre  s'en  est  suivie,  de  la  d('>portation. 

Cette  disposition  de  la  loi  est,  dans  I'opinion  du  soussigne,  evidem- 
nient  applica'ble  aux  auteurset  complices  des  iaits«iui  .sont  resumes  plus 
haut.  (^uels  que  soient  les  motifs  et  quel  que  soit  le  caractcre  de  la  lutte 
si  deplorablement  engagee  au  seiii  de  I'Union  americaine,  soit  qu'on  Ja 
eousidere  connue  une  guerre  civile,  nieme  comme  une  insurrection  d'une 
partie  de  la  nation  americaine  contre  le  Gouvernement  etabli,  soit  que 
i'on  envisage  Is:  separation  qui  veut  s'operer  les  arines  a  la  main,  comme 
une  division  de  la  nation  en  deux  p*niples  diflereuts,  la  guerre  entre 
ces  deux  parties,  nous  dit  encore  Vattel,  retombe  a  tons  egards  dans  le 
eas  d'une  guerre  publique  entre  deux  nations  differeutes.  Les  peuples 
<iui  ueveulent  point  etre  entraiues  a  prendre  part  a  cette  guerre  doi vent 
se  renfermer  dans  les  stricts  devoirs  de  la  neutralite  qu'ils  proalament. 

Au  milieu  dudechirement  interieur  de  la  nation  americaine,  dans  I'etat 
de  paix  oii  est  la  France  avec  le  gouvernment  des  fitats-Uuis,  dans  Tetat 
des  relations  d'amitie  et  de  commerce  qui  lient  les  deux  pays,  il 
[253]  n'est  pas  d'actiou  hostile  qui  puisse  provoquer  pins  d'irritatiou  ♦et 
faire  soulever  contre  la  France  de  plu8ju^J^e8  griefs  que  le  secours 
et  la  fourniture  d'armements  maritimes  dounes  par  des  Frtin^ais  a  I'en- 
nemi  du  Gouvernement  de  Washington,  au  moyeu  des  traites  conclus 
;ivec  les  confed^res,  et  de  construction  de  navires  et  de  fabrication 
d'armes  de  guerre  operees  publiquement  daus  les  ports,  sur  les  chautiers 
et  dans  les  usines  de  la  France. 

L'action  des  entrepreneurs  de  ces  armements  est  d'autant  plus  com- 
promettapte,  et  expose  d'autant  plus  uotre  pays  i  etre  cou'-idere  comme 
lenuemi  et  jY  voir  faire  contre  lui  une  declaration  de  guerre,  que  les 


20 


TKKATV    f-l-     \VA.-H;.\(.T0N — [WPEKs    A(  {'OMPAXVING 


anut'inoiits  <I</iit  il  s'iigit  sa  font  avoc  des  aa'oii«ations  ivguli^iemcnt 
(loiiiK'es  ])'\v  I'adiniiiistratiou  lianraise.  (Je  nVst  i)lus  ici  le  riis  d'appii- 
<,iier  les  (Hiiicipes  (|ui  rt'gleiit  d'oidinaiic,  a  IVgard  des  nafioiis  neutrejs. 
les  cfiistMiueiices  des  txprditions  tie  contvebaudes  de  guerre,  quoiqiic 
iiaviyiiant  sons  i)aviIlou  iioutro.  L.s  exiukliteurs  de  ces  marchaudises, 
tiiles  que  les  arnies,  les  munitions,  toutes  les  inatieres  i)n'q)arees  pour  lii 
guerre,  sout  seals  responsables :  Elles  peuveut  etre  saisies  et  declar«''cs  d*- 
bonne  prise,  leur  pavilion  ne  leseouvre  pas;  mais  il  n'en  r«'*suite  aueunc 
responsabilite  a  la  eliarge  dii  gouvernement  auquel  ees  expediteura  et 

arinateurs  appartiennent. 
[2."»4:|        *J)ans  les  trait«5S  et  dans  Pexecution  des  traites  intervenus  entre 

les  eonstrueteurs  fran(;ais  et  les  agents  des  etats  contederes,  Ic 
nom  et  I'autoritc  du  gouvernement  fran(;ais  ont  et<''  conipromis  par  les 
autoiisations  accorcb-es.  Les  laits  se  presentent  done  avec  le  caracterc 
d'une  aetion  hostile  de  la  part  de  notre  gonvernenient  eontre  le  gouver 
nenient  ann'rieain.  Avec  ce  caractere,  les  faits  pourraint  done  exposei 
la  Franec  a  une  deelaration  de  guerre. 

Maisil  est  viai  de  direqueeette  apparente  eoniproniission  du  gouveruc 
nient  franeais  n'est  que  le  r<''sultat  du  dol  pratique  par  les  eonstrueteurs  et 
participants  du  traite  du  15  avril,  qui,  a  I'aide  d'uue  fausse  indication  de 
la  destination  des  navires,  ont  troinp«;  les  ministres  de  la  marine  et  de  la 
guerre,  (^ue  des  exidications  loyalement  dounees  de  gouvernenient  a 
g-ouverneinent,  que  le  retrait  des  autorisations  aeeordees  a  MM.  Armaii 
et  Voru/,  fassent  toinber  toute  plainte  et  recrimination  de  la  part  dii 
gouvernement  des  Ktats-Unis,  le  caractere  criminel  des  faiis  dont  ces 
messieurs  ct  leurs  cooperateurs  se  sont  rendus  coupables  n'en  sera  pa> 

moditie,  et  ils  n'en  auront  i»as  moins  fait  des  actions  liostiles  qui 
|li.M|    e.vposaient  la  France  a  une  declaration  de  guerre;  ils  sont  *don(' 

ilaii^  le  cas  textuellement  pievu  par  I'article  84  du  Code  penal.  Il> 
n'ont  pas  le  droit  d'alb'guer  (|u'ils  ont  «''t«'  b'galement  autorisi's  par  le 
gouvernement.  La  fraude  dont  ils  ont  use,  viciant  dans  leur  essenci 
mcine  les  actes  dont  ils  prctendaijnt  se  prevaloir,  leur  culpabilite  est 
aggravee  aux  yeux  de  la  Justice  frai.'caise. 

11  est  (Tautres  de  nos  lois  dont  les  contractants  et  participants  des 
marches  des  {."» ;ivril  et  lOjuillct  i.s^l-'iont  t'rauduleusenient  <''lud('  lesdis 
positions. 

La  loi  du  21  mai  IS-'JI  porte  : 

Aim.:'.  Timt  individu  qui.  suns  y  t"'tn'  li'^ialciiiciit  autoii.si,  aiiiii  fiiliiKini' on  coiilVc 
tioniu'  (It's  iiriiM-s  de  siiiciii',  dfs  faitomdii's  et,  auirt's  iiiiiiiitioiis  de  <rueii'e  ....  m'Vji 
jMiiii  d"iiM  fiiqii'isonueiui-iit  il'iin  inois  a  deiix  aiis  et  d'nMi'  aiDeiidc  de  Hi  iVaue.s  a  l.it'in 
fvaiics. 

Aui.  4.  l.fs  iiifraetions  iJivviics  i»ar  les  articles  ]»re(i'(lciit.>  seroiit  jiijjoes  par  les  tii- 
lintiaiix  de  ]i()liee  edrrectinimelle.  Les  ariiies  -t  iiiuuitious  falu'i([tiei;s  sans  autoriwutitui 
sei'oiit  eoutisqnocH. 

Dans  rinteret  du  d«''veloppement  de  la  fabrication  fran(;aise  et  de  notif 
commerce  exterieur,  une  ordonnance  royale,  du  12  juillet  1847,  n 
[25()|    regie  Tapplication  de  cette  loi  de  1831  *et  les  formalit«''s  admini 
stratives  qui  doiveut  etre  rempiies  par  les  fabricants  d'armes. 
On  lit  dans  I'article  1''  de  Tordon nance  du  12  juillet : 

Conforme'ineut  a  I'artiele  'A  de  la  loi  d\i  '24  inai  I8:i4,  tout  iiiilividu  i|ui  voudra  t'aliri- 
•liier  on  cont'eetioniier  des  ainu's  de  )j;ueire  \)our  I'lisajfe  des  uavire.s  de  conimenr 
devia  oliteiiir  )irealal)leiiieiit  laiistorisutioii  de  iiotiw  miiiistre  secrdtaire  d'etat  au  th- 
l>artenienf  de  la  };'i*'i">'''.  "*t  de  notre  iniiiiHtre  secretaire  d'etat  ail  d<^partemeiit  tie  li 
marine  <{.  des  coloniis.  (jnaut  anx  Itoiiehesa  fen  et  aux  niuiiitions. 

Dans  la  juatique,  ces  dispositions  de  I'ordonnance  q.'i  setnblaieDt 
n'ctii'  aiqdicables  qu'a  rarmement  de  nos  navires  de  commerc  s  ont  «'1< 


5tend 
Imerce 
Pot 

'pouvfi 

en  gag 

'maud 

Siiti  )n 

site, 


(lui  lui 
mdept 
guerre 
I'appai 
destim 
couraj 
dice  ..' 

II  r( 
(pielle 
coupal 
reparn 

Let 
naux 
etabli( 
penal, 
specia 
et  plei 

Con 
struct 

1259] 

compe 
^   devan 


SG 

uliiM'eincnt 
•as  d'appii. 
lis  neutics. 
:e,  quoiqiie 
chaiulises. 
L'es  pour  lii 
eclaivos  de 
lite  aueuiic 

L'llitt'Ul'8  ot 

enuseutre 
ifedon's,  1(> 
nis  par  los 
e  caractt'ic 
le  gonver 
lie  exposei 

I  gouv^enic 
ructeurs  ft 
Llicatioii  dc 
ine  et  do  l;i 
irnemeut  n 
II\r.  Arniaii 
la  part  dii 
IS  dout  ce> 
Ml  sera  pa> 
lostiles  qui 
sont  *doii(' 
penal.  Il> 
"s(''s  par  h- 
ur  esseiici 
al>ilit(''  est 

ipaiits  (]('.> 
id(''  lesdis- 


It'  oil  contt'c- 

.   .   .  .sera 
iiiR-s  a  l.iioii 

par  Ics  tri- 
aiitoriMiitiiiii 


t  de  notic 
let  1847,  a 
's  admiiii 
Urines. 


jiulra  t'alni- 

CiUJIini'lCr 

[Vtat  ail  ill  ■ 
'incut  d;'  li 


einljlaieiii 
• ',  out  «''!<  «: 


COr.NTKK    CASK    OF    THE    rMTKD    MATH- 


21 


Vendues  a  la  fabrieatiou  et  a  la  livraisou  des;  annes  de  giinrre  an  eom 
lerce  «''traiiger. 

Pour  obteiiir  les  autorisatioiis  toiijours  re(juist's  vn  pareil  eas,  et  pour 
fpouvoir  livrer  anx  coute<l<''i('S  les  ariueineiits  de  jiuerre  qu'ils  setaieut 
feugagL'S  a  leiir'  fouruir,  3nr.  Annan  et  Voru/.  out  addresst*  leurs  de- 
fniaiides  i\  MM.  les  ministres  de  la  marine  et  de  la  guerre.  Les  autori- 
[sations  leur  out  ett'  accordoes,  nir'iiie  ils  out  obtrMiu  la  permission  de  vi- 
[sitev  les  etablisseineuts  de  IN'tat  pour  profiter  des  ameliorations  appoi- 

t<''es  a  I'outillage. 

|[1157]  *C*est  a  la  vue  de  ces  autorisatioiis  qu'il  a  dit  liii  paraitre  suf- 
tisaiites  que  Tagent  diplomatique  des  couf«''d«*res  a  ratitio,  le  0  juin 
[ISG.'j,  le  traite  passe  le  1.5  avril  pre'X'dent  entre  MM.  Arman  et  JJullock. 
iMais,  coinme  on  Ta  vu  dans  la  lettre  atlress«'*e  par  M.  Arman  li  M.  le 
niinistre  de  la  marine  le  1*^^'  juin,  ce  n'est  qu'en  trompant  seiemment  le 
uiiiiistre  sur  la  destinatiou  des  armements  dont  ils  voulaient  muiiir  les 
(piatre  navires  construits  a  Bordeaux  et  a  Nantes  que  ces  messieurs  se 
sont  faitaceorder  les  autorisations  qu'ils  sollicitaient  indumeut. 

J>e  lelles  autorisatioiis  subrepticement  obtenues  doivent  done  etre 

cousiderees  conime  nulles  et  de  nul  eff'et.    MM.  Arman,  Voruz  et  leurs 

,  conipliees  sont  done  dans  un  cas  de  violation  de  la  loi  du  24  mai  1834,  et 

pors  le  eoup  des  peiiiAs  eorrectionelles  qu'elle  prononce. 

'      ] '    ^ri'iie  et  le  delit  resultant  de  la  violation  de  Tartiele  84  du  Code 

•     '  v!e  la  loi  de  1834  constituent  MM.  Arman  et  Voru/ et  leurs 

v   .ni.'ie.   I's  contrevenants  aux  defenses  et  recommendations couteuues 

dans  la  d«''claration  imp«''riale  du  10  juin,  et  doivent  etre,  ainsi  (pi'il  est 

dit  dans  eette  declaration,  poursuivis  conformement  aux  dispositions  de 

'la  loi. 

Les  faits  qui  doivent  donner  lieu  a  ces  poursuites  h'-gales  out  ete  com- 
111  is  an  prejudice  et  contre  la  securite  du  gouvernement  des  Itltas-Unis. 
II  est  bors  de  doute  que  le  gouvernement  est  en  droit,  comme  t'jut 
[L'nS]    etranger,  de  se  *pourvoir  devant  les  tribunaux  franeais  poui  re- 
elamer  la  repression  et  la  reparation  de  faits  accomplis  en  France 
<iui  lui  sont  dommageables.  Ici,  ie  dommage  est  incontestable,  parce  que, 
mdepeudamraent  de  la  livraison  des  navires  et  de  leurs  armements  de 
guerre,  le  fait  iiotoire  de  la  construction  et  de  TarmeD^ent  en  France,  sous 
I'apparente  autor'jsation  du  gou  -ernement  franeais,  de  navires  de  guerre 
|,  destines  aux  e  iift'deres,  etait  en  lui-meme  pour  ceux-ci  un  [missant  en- 
eouragement  a  ou'itenir  la  liitte,  et  portait  ainsi  un  incalculable  preju- 
dice i;n  (ro  -A  Til.;  neat  federal. 

11  reste     u   •-■■>■!-  ;gue  a  indiquor  an  Gouverneiiieut  des  fitats-Unis 
quelles  voies  ju  '  i'ijii'ies  il  jieut  snivre  pour  faire  pnuioiieer  eontre  les 
eoupables  let!  •<■.  ;     Jons  qui  lui  sont  dues,  et  (juelles  doivent  etre  ces 
reparations. 

Le  Ciouvernement  des  Htats-Uiiis  jieut  rendre  plainte  devfiut  les  tribu- 
naux franeais  pour  raison  des  faits  dont  la  oi'iiiinalite  vient  d'etre 
etablie,  et  notammeut  quant  an  crime  nn'^vu  par  Tarticle  84  du  Code 
penal.  Cette  plainte  devra  etre  remise,  soit  a  la  diligence  d'uu  agent 
specialemeuu  autorise,  soit  sur  la  poursuite  de  renvoye  extraordinaire 
et  pleni-  .^tentiaire  (tes  T^itats-Unis  en  France,  an  juocureur  iuqterial. 

Conr  >!•-  MPut  aux  dispositions  des  articles  G.»  et  G4  du  Code  d'in- 
strnctioii  v.  t  jinelle,  la  plainte  peut  etre  portee,  ou  devant  le  magistrat 
du  Ik  .  -  k  '.rime  et  le  debt  out  ete  coiumis,  ou  devant  celui  de 
[259]  la  resjuence  de  rincnlpe.  Comme  il  y  *a  plusieurs  complices  et 
agents  des  faits  incrimines,  le  juge  du  domicile  de  I'un  d'eux  est 
competent  pour  recevoir  la  plainte,  et  tons  les  complices  seroiit  api>eles 
devant  lui  en  raison  de  la  connexite  des  faits  denon«'«v^. 


$ 


:M 


.'ii 


22 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON PAPERS    ACCOMPANYING 


MM.  liullock  et  Slidell,  agents  iles  couft'deros,  sont,  quoiqu'etrangcrs, 
jiisticiabh's  des  tribunaux  lran«;ais  i)oiir  raison  des  faits  coupables  qu'ils 
ont  piovoqiu'S  on  anxquels  ils  out  participe  snr  le  territoire  franyais. 
La  plainte  devni  onoiicer  les  faits  inculpe.s  et  otre  appuyee  des  pieces 
justificatives. 

Pour  faire  i)rononcer  les  i(''i)aratioiis  qu'il  se  propose  de  demander,  le 
CJonverneiueut  americaiu  devra,  i^ar  sou  ageut  special,  declarer  qu'il 
enteud  so  constituer  partie  civile — c'est-a-Uire,  qu'il  euteud  soutenir  la 
poursuite  ii  flu  de  reparation,  concurremuieut  avec  le  uiinistere  public. 
Eu  se  constituant  partie  civile,  le  Gouveruemeut  des  Itltats-Uuis  doit 
etre  averti  qu'il  pourra  etre  teuu  de  donuer  caution  judicatum  solvi,  aux 
ternies  de  Particle  100  du  Code  de  procedure  civile,  ainsi  conyu: 

Tous  otranijers,  deiiiandems  priiicipaux  ou  intervcnauts  seror.t  temis,  si  le  clofi'iideur 

10  reqiiiert,  avaiit  toiito  exception,  de  tbuniir  caution  et  payer  les  frais  et  doiunia^es- 
intorets  aux»iuels  ils  pounaieut  etre  coudanuics. 

Enfin,  il  faut  faire  observer  que  I'ane  des  personnes  contre  lesqnelles 
la  plainte  devra  etre  portee  collectivement  est  membre  du  Corps  legis 

latif,  et  qu'en  raison  de  la  <]nalite  qui  lui  appartient,  avant  do 
[2(5()J    donner  suite  a  la  pi:  irte,  le  uiinistere  ])ublic  devra  demander  *i\ 

I'asseniblee  I'autoriiL   .     '  ^e  poursuivre,  confonueinent  A  rariicl':' 

11  du  decret  organ ique  de  to  1852.  * 

Dans  le  cas  oil  I'on  ne  voudi.  porter  plainte  que  pour  raison  de  la 
violation  de  la  loi  du  24  mai  1831  et  de  I'ordonnance  de  1847,  au  lieu  de 
soumettre  la  plainte  au  jugo  d'iustruction  ou  de  la  reniettre  au  procu- 
reur  imperial.  Taction  devant  etre  portee  devant  un  tribunal  correction 
nel,  le  Gouveruemeut  american  pourrait  proceder  par  voie  de  citation 
directe,  et  il  i)orterait  devant  le  juge  correctionnel  sa  deniaude  a  flu  do 
reparations  civiles  et  de  donmiages-interets. 

Dans  le  cas  eulin  on  le  Gouvernement  des  Etats-Uuis  renoncerait  a 
intenter,  pour  raison  des  faits  doiit  11  s'agit,  soit  une  action  au  criniiuel 
par  voie  de  i>laiute,  soit  une  simple  actiou  correctiounelle,  il  pent  sepa 
rer  Paction  civile  de  Paction  publique,  et  intenter  contre  ceux  qui  lui 
ont  fait  prejudice  une  actiou  devant  le»  tribunaux  civils,  sauf  au  mini 
stere  public  jY  exercer  Paction  publique  eu  repression  du  crime  et  du 
delit,  s'il  lejuge  a  propos. 

Devant  le  tribunal  civil,  le  Gouver  lement  des  I^'tats-Uuis  n'aura  a  in 
votjuer,  en  justifiant  des  actes  dont  il  a  soutiert,  que  les  dispositions  de 
Particle  1382  du  Code  civil,  ou  il  est  ecrit : 

t'<i()l  ]      Tout  fait  quelconrnie  de  riioniuie,  qui  cause  *a  autrui  iiu  douimago  oblige  celiii, 
par  la  faute  duqnel  il  eat  arrive,  a  reparer. 

A  fin  de  reparation  du  crime  ou  du  di'lit  coaimis  envers  lui,  le  Gou- 
vernement federal  demandera,  a  titre  d'indenuiite,  la  confiscation  des 
constructions  et  fabrications  taites  a  sou  prejudice.  II  pourra  memo, 
apres  avoir  intente  le  proces,  demander,  a  titre  de  mesure  conservatrice, 
d'etre  autorise  a  saisir  i)rovisoirement,  et  i\  ses  risques  et  perils,  tous 
les  objets  construits  et  fabriques,  comme  elements  des  faits  criminels 
dont  la  reparation  pent  etre  ainsi  ordounee  sans  que,  devaut  les  juri 
dictions  competentt  ,  les  dispositions  des  lois  penales  aient  re^u  leiir 
application. 

i)elibere  a  I'aris,  le  12  novembre  1803. 

BERRYEK, 
Ancicii  Butonnier  de  VOrdre  den  Avocats  de  Paris. 


G 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES. 


•>«> 


Hrangei'S, 
bles  qu'ils 
J  fran(;aih. 
les  pieces 

iiander,  Ic 
arer  qu'il 
ioutenir  la 
re  public. 
Uiiis  doit 
solvi,  aux 
>ii(;u : 

Ic  defi'iideur 
domniiigos- 

le.sqnelles 
orps  legis 
,  avant  de 
minder  *i\ 
,  A  rariicl',' 

jison  de  la 
au  lieu  do 
(  au  procu 
correction 
le  citation 
de  ii  tin  do 

loncerait  a 
\\  criniinol 
l>eut  sepa 
Bux  qui  lui 
if  au  mini 
rime  et  du 

I'aura  s\  in 
jsitions  do 

oblige  celiii. 

li,  le  Gon- 
cation  dcs 
irra  memo, 
servatrice, 
)eril8,  tons 
i  criminels 
tit  les  juri 
t  re^u  lenr 


EK, 

de  Paris. 


m[2G2] 


'E. 


Translation  of  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Berryer. 


The  undersigned,  formerly  advocate,  after  examination  of  the  con- 
sultative memoir  presented  in  the  name  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
'together  with  the  documents  justiftcative,  hereto  annexed,  and  after 
deliberation  upon  the  questions  submitted  to  him,  is  of  the  following 
i  opinion  : 

From  the  expose  contained  in  the  memorandum  and  the  accompanying 
;  documents  results  the  complete  proof  of  the  facts,  which  it  will  be  ad- 
vantageous first  to  recapitulate. 

In  the  month  of  February,  18G1,  several  of  the  Southern  American 
[States,  until  that  time  undei-  the  Government  of  the  Federal  Constitu- 
iion  of  the  United  States,  resolved  to  separate  themselves  from  the 
Northern  States,  and  assembled  a  congress  for  the  purpose  of  consti- 
tuting the  government  of  the  Cotifederate  States  of  America.  War  be- 
tween the  confederates  and  the  FederarGovernment  broke  out  in  the 
;  month  of  April. 

On  the  10th  of  June,  in  the  same  year,  in  the  official  part  of  the  Moni- 
[tenr,  a  declaration  appeared,  submitted  by  the  minister  of  foreign 

aftairs  to  the  Emperor  of  the  French  and  by  him  approved. 
[2G3J        *By  this  solemn  act  the  Emperor,  considering  the  i)eaceful  re- 
lations existing  between  France  ami  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica, resolved  to  maintain  a  a  strict  neutrality  in  the  struggle  commenced 
", between  the  Government  of  the  Union  and  the  States  pretending  to  form 
'«^4i  distinct  confederation. 

It  declares,  among  other  things : 

:{.  All  Frciicluuen  are  forbidden  to  take  a  coiniiiis.sioa  from  either  of  the  two  parties 
^  for  arming  vessels  of  war,      '     *     *     or  to  eo-operate  in  any  manner  whatsoever  iu 
the  eiiuipnient  or  armament  of  a  war-vessei  v>r  corsair  of  either  of  the  parties. 

5.  Frenchmen  residing  in  '''ranee  or  in  otL°r  conutries  will  be  reijuired  eqnally  to 
iibstain  from  every  act  which,  committed  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  the  empire  or  of 
:  the  laws  of  nations,  could  be  c(>nsidere<l  as  a  hostile  iict  by  one  of  the  parties,  and  con- 
j  trary  to  the  neutrality  which  we  have  resolved  to  maintain. 

The  imperial  declaration  ends  thus : 

Ottendi'rs  against  the  prohibitions  and  recoinnieudation«  contained  iu  tht  presen 
hleclaration  will  be  prosecuted,  if  opportunity  shall  oti'er,  in  conformity  with  the  terms 
[of  the  law  of  the  10th  of  April,  Wl'i,  and  of  articles  84  and  85  of  the  penal  code,  with- 
out prejudice  to  the  application  which  may  be  made  in  the  case  of  such  otten- 
[['^04]  ders  of  *the  terms  of  article  21  of  the  code  Napoleon,  and  of  articles  65  and  fol- 
lowing of  the  decree  of  the  24th  of  March,  1802,  conceruiug  the  merchant  marine, 
flUl}  and  following  of  the  penal  code  for  the  navy. 

In  spite  of  this  public  declaration  of  the  neutrality  of  France,  in  spite 
of  the  formal  prohibitions  which  it  pronounces  in  conformity  with  the 
law  of  nations  and  the  sp'?cial  laws  of  France,  an  agreement  was  signed 
on  the  15th  of  April,  ISOo,  between  Lucieu  Armaii,  ship-builder  at  Bor- 
deaux, and  James  Dunwoody  Bullock,  an  American,  agent  of  the  con fed- 
1 4'rate  government,  stipulating  that  it  is  by  the  order  and  for  the  account 
of  his  principal,  whose  duly-executed  i>ower  of  attorney  it  declares  him 
to  have  produced. 

For  the  execution  of  the  agreement  Mr.  Bullock  names  the  banking- 
house  of  Mr.  Erlanger,  of  Paris. 

By  this  agreement  Mr.  Armau  "  engages  to  construct  four  steamers  of 
four  hundred  horsepower,  and  arranged  for  the  reception  of  an  armament 
i  of  from  ten  to  twelve  cannons." 

It  is  stipulated  that  Mr.  Arman  shall  construct  two  of  these  ships  in 


24 


TREATY    OI-     WASHINGTON PAPERS    A(  rOMTANYlNG 


his  yards  at  Bordeaux,  and  shad   intrust  the  execution  of  tico  other  .sA//«.v 
to  Mr.  Voruz,  to  he  coiiNtrneted  at  the  same  time  in  his  yards  at  yantes. 

To  disguise  the  destination  of  these  four  ships  the  agreement  states 

tliat  they  are  intended  to  establish  a  "reguhir  couiniuuication  betweei: 

Shanghai,  Jeddo,  and  San  Francisco,  passing  the  strait  of  A'at: 

[20j]    Dieuian,  and  also  that  they  are  to  *be  fitted  out,  should  the oppoi 

tunity  present  itself,  for  sale  to  the  Chinese  or  Japanese  empire."' 

Finally  Mr.  Bullock  engages  to  make  known  to  the  constructors  the 
banking-house  which  will  be  charged  with  effecting  the  i)ayment  at  Paris 
of  the  price  of  each  of  these  ships,  which  is  fixed  at  the  sum  of  1,800,0(K) 
francs. 

The  1st  of  June  following,  Mr.  Annan,  in  order  to  conform  to  theroya) 
ordinance  of  l-'th  July,  1847,  addressed  to  the  minister  of  marine  a  dc 
maud  for  authorization  to  sujjply  with  an  armament  of  twelve  to  fourteei: 
thirty  pound  cannon  four  stearashii>s,  iron-clad,  in  process  of  construction, 
tico  in  his  ship-yards  at  Bordeaux,  one  in  that  ofJollet  tt*  Bahin  at  yantcs. 
and  one  in  that  of  Mr.  Dnhigcon  at  yantes. 

These  sliips^it  is  said  in  the  letter  addressed  to  the  minister)  .ire  destined  for  a  for- 
eign shipper,  to  do  service  in  theCliineso  seas  and  on  the  Pacific  between  China,  Japaii, 
and  Han  Francisco.  Their  special  ariuauieut  has  the  additional  object  of  perinittiniL; 
their  eventnal  sale  to  the  government  of  China  and  .Japan. 

The  cannons  will  be  ma<le  under  the  superintendence  of  Mr.  Vornz,  sr..  of  Nantes. 

Mr.  Armau's  letter  ends  as  follows : 

The  construction  being  iinilcr  way  since  the  l')lh  of  last  -Ipiil,  1  pmij  your  cjreellcncy  to  qnv.i 
Mr.  Vornz,  as  noon  ax  poi^mbh,  the  authorization  J  nolicit  and  n'lu<h  the  royal  ordinance  of  •lulij 
Vi,  l^Al,  requires. 

Upon  this  cvpose,  and  for  the  supposed  destination  of  the  four  ships; 

authorization  was  accorded  by  the  minister  of  marine  on  the  (!th  J  unc- 
us requested  by  Mr.  Arman. 

[206]        *On  the  same  0th  of  June  Mr.  Slidell,  another  agent  of  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  Confederate  States,  addressed  to  Mr.  Arman  tlie 

following  letter: 

In  conse(|uence  of  the  ministerial  authorization  which  you  have  shown  me,  and  whii  ^ 
I  deem  sntticieut,  the  agreement     'the  15th  of  April  becomes  obligatory. 

Three  days  after,  the  9th  of  June,  Mr.  Erlanger,  a  banker  at  Paris, 
Avhom  Bullock  had  named  in  the  agreement  of  the  loth  of  April,  and 
Avho  was  to  guarantee  the  payments  to  the  constructors  of  the  four  ships, 
wrote  to  Mr.  Arman : 

I  engage  to  guarantee  yon  the  first  two  payments  for  the  ships  tc/iitft  you  an  luildiuj 
for  the  confederates,  in  consideration  of  a  commission,  &c. 

The  financial  conditions  proposed  by  jMr.  Erlanger  were  accej)ted  bv 
Mr.  Arman,  who,  the  same  9th  of  June,  addressed  to  Mr.  Voruz,  at  Nantes, 
the  following  telegram : 

Mr.  VoKCZ,  Grand  Hotel,  Paris  : 

I  have  signed,  without  modification,  the  letter  to  Erlanger.    It  is  on  the  way. 

AKMAN. 

On  his  part,  Mr.  Erlanger  wrote  ou  the  same  day  to  Vorux,at  Nantes : 

Here  are  the  letters  of  engagement,  the  contract,  and  the  copy.  As  you  are  living 
nnder  the  same  roof  with  Captain  Bullock,  you  will  perhaps  be  good  enough  to  havf 
him  sign  the  copy  of  the  contract.    I  have  written  directly  to  Mr.  Arman.     Keceivo, 

&-C. 

[207]       *0n  the  next  day,  the  10th  of  June,  ^fr.  Arman  addres.sed  to  Mr. 
Voruz,  sr.,  a  letter  to  the  following  effect: 

r>KAR  Mk.  AV iiuv, :  I  have  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  registered  letter  of  the  9tli, 
and  of  thedraft  of  Bnllock  for  7'2O,000  francs,  which  was  inclosed.     I  hasten  todiscluirj,"'  j 


i 


sG 


COUNTER  .CASK    OF    THE    r\m:i>    STATES. 


•_>:, 


othrr  fihifi': 
y  antes. 
lent  states 
)n  botwet'i: 
lit  of  A'lii: 
the  oppoi 
5e  empire."' 
uctors  the 
Mit  at  Paris 
I'  1,800,0(1(1 

o  tlie  royal 
lariiie  a  (!«' 
to  fourteci: 
nstrnctioii, 
at  yant(>\ 


lU'il  lor  a  I'oi- 
.'liina,  Jaiuiii, 
)f  pi'Vinittiii^ 

of  Naiit<'>. 


Utncy  1(>  ffiin.i 
hiaiice  of  Juiii 


four  ships; 
e  0th  Jnii('< 


of  the  gov- 
Annan  tlu' 


[le.  and  AvliK  ^ 

■r  at  Paris,  ^ 
April,  ami  4 
four  ships, 

tu  an  buildiitj 

icoei)ted  by 
,  at  Nantes, 


le  way. 
AKxMAN. 

at  Nantes : 

oil  are  living; 
lougli  to  Lavi' 
au.    Keceivf,  j 

ssed  to  Mr. 


:er  of  the  9th, 
II  to  diHcliar<"' 


:f 


yoii.  iis  you  desire,  from  the  dociinients  siarncd  by  you  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  JJiilloek  for 
the  first  payment  of  the  two  ships  of  four  hundred  horse-power,  whieh  1  uui  construct- 
in"  for  ilie  account  of  the  confederates  simultaneously  with  those  which  you  are  hav- 
jnjj  huilt  by  Messrs.  Jollet  A:  Habin  and  ])ubif^-eon. 

1  pray  you  to  arranjjje  in  such  manner  as  to  obtain  from  Mr.  Bullock  the  proniis*-  to 
rc-imbtirse  us  tinally  on  account  of  the  discounts  of  guarantee  we  are  paying  to  .Mr. 
Erlanger.     h'eceive,  A:c. 

On  the  other  hand,  Messrs.  Jollet  »S:Iiabin  and  Ditbigeon,  charged  with 

the  construction,  in  their  yards  at  Nantes,  of  two  of  the  four  ships,  as 

above  stated  in  the  letter  addressed  on  the  1st  of  June  by  Mr.  Annan 

I*  to  the  minister  of  marine,  wrote  on  the  10th  of  \iie  same  month  to  Mr. 

Voruz : 

Dkar  Ml!.  V(ii:t /.:  After  having  noted  the  linamiivl  conditions  which  have  been 
addressed  to  you  by  the  house  of  P'rlanger,  ««  well  an  thf  letters  which  hare  paxxnt 
.['Jt*!*]  betireen  ' ijoa  and  Alcxarx.  SUdell  atid  Jhillock,  we  recall  to  you  our  verbal  agree- 
ments, foi  the  purpose  of  fixing  precisely  our  respective  positions  in  this  affair. 

Other  i)ersous,  with  full  knowledge  of  the  real  destination  of  these 
constructions  and  of  the  naval  armaments,  were  to  take  a  notable  part 
in  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  the  operation,  and  were  to  support 
proportionally  the  discount  of  guarantee  stipulated  in  favor  of  ^Ir.  Er- 
langer. It  is  to  arrive  at  an  understanding  upon  this  last  head  that  Mr. 
ITenri  Aruous  liiviere,  a  merchant  at  Nantes,  wrote  on  the  Sth  of  June 
to  Mr.  Voruz,  sr. : 

The  financial  complication  arisen  in  the  affair  of  which  the  contract  Wius  signe<l  on 
he  loth  of  Ai)ril  last,  between  Arman,  yourself,  and  Ca]ttain  Bullock,  is  the  motive  uf 
the  proposition  which  I  am  about  to  submit  to  you. 

Messrs.  Mazetin  &  Co.,  of  Havre,  were  (charged  with  preparing  the 

steam-engines  for  the  four  screw-steamers  whose  hulls  Avere  building  in 

J  the  yards  of  Bordeaux  and  Nantes.    lUit  were  they  ignorant  of  the  actual 

^'  destination  of  these  war-ships  when  thev  wrote  to  Voruz,  .sr.,  on  the 

23d  of  June,  1803  1 

MoxsiKUR :  In  sifiiiiiig  some  days  since  the  Bullock  agreement,  &c.,  we  omitted  to  cor- 
rect au  error  in  the  dimensions  of  the  engines,  A:c.     Wejtray  you  to  write  us  that  the 
last  measures,  which  arc  those  in  conntrnclion,  are  those  agreed  on  between  us. 

[2Gt)J  *A11  then  was  perfectly  agreed  upon  between  the  different  ])ar- 
ticipants  for  the  execution  of  the  agreement  completed  on  the  1  iith 
of  April,  1803,  between  Arman,  the  French  builder,  and  Captain  Bullock. 
This  agreement  had  been  expressly  ratified  by  Slidell,  the  diplomatic 
agent  of  the  Confederate  States,  according  to  his  letter  addressed  to  Mr. 
Arman  on  the  Gth  of  June,  18G3.  The  ministerial  authorization  required 
by  French  law  for  the  construction  and  armament  of  ships  of  war 
has  been  accorded  ;  the  administration  having  doubtless  been  deceived 
by  the  pretended  destination  that  nforcUpi  shipper  had  in  view  for  these 
f-'iips  of  war,  in  the  China  seas  and  the  Pacific,  and  by  the  eventual  con- 
«.ition  of  a  sale  to  the  governments  of  China  and  Japan.  But  their  real 
destination  for  the  service  of  the  belligerent  States  of  the  South  is  per- 
fectly knov^^n  to  all  the  parties  interested. 

The  construction  of  the  vessels,  their  engines,  and  armaments  is  in  full 
activity.  The  payments,  guaranteed  to  the  constructors  by  a  powerful 
banking-house,  are  partially  effected. 

A  second  operation  was  to  take  place.  On  the  14th  of  July,  18G3, 
Voruz,  sr.,  writing  from  Paris  to  his  son  Anthony,  announces  to  him 
that  Captain  Bullock  and  Mr.  Arman  set  out  the  evening  before  for  Bor- 
deaux, together  with  Erlanger,  the  banker,  and  that  there  was  question 
of  an  agreement/or  some  iron-dads.  At  the  .same  time  he  told  him 
[270]  that  au  arrangement  had  been  completed  with  a  *Mr.  Blakeley,  an 
English  iron-founder,  for  furniishing  48  cannon  with  200  balls  each. 


s 


k, 


i   . 


m 


m 


26 


TREATY   OF    WASHINGTON PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 


The  agreement,  said  he,  is  mafic  In  snch  a  manner  as  to  insure  to  us  the  exclusive 
furnishing  of  all  irhich  can  be  executed  in  France. 

On  the  15th  of  July,  the  same  Voriiz,  recalling  to  the  attention  of  the 
minister  of  marine  the  fact  that  by  his  letter  of  the  Gth  of  June  he  had 
heen  good  enough  to  authorize  the  preparation,  in  his  works  at  Nantes, 
of  the  cannons  necessary  for  the  armament  of  four  ships,  of  which  two  arc 
being  constructed  at  Bordeaux  in  the  yards  of  Mr.  Arman  and  tico  in  the 
yards  at  2^\intes,  demands  of  the  minister  permission  to  visit  the  govern 
ment  establishment  at  Kueil,  to  see  the  improv^eiuents  made  in  utensils, 
&c.    This  i)erniission  was  given  on  the  9th  of  August. 

A  new  agreement  was  signed  in  duplicate  at  Bordeaux,  the  IGth  ol 
July,  18G3: 

It  has  been  agreed  between  Mr.  Arman,  ship-bnihler  at  Bordeaux,  deputy  of  tin- 
Corps  Lt'gislatif,  No.  6  quai  de  la  Monnaie,  and  Mr.  James  Duuwoody  Bullock,  acting 
under  orders  and  for  tlie  account  of  principals  whose  duly-executed  power  of  attorney 
ho  has  produced,  electing  domicile  with  M.  M.  Ciuik>  Erlanger,  '21  rue  de  la  Chaus<''f 
d'Antin,  Paris,  as  follows: 

Art.  1,  Mr.  Arman  engages  with  Mr.  Bullock,  who  accepts  Ihe  terms,  to  cou- 
[271]  struct  for  his  account,  in  his  *yards  at  Bordeaux,  two  screw-steainships  of  wood 
and  iron,  of  'MO  horse-power,   with  two  scn^ws,  with  two  iron-clad  turrets,  in 
conformity  with  the  jilan  accepted  by  Mr.  Bullock. 

AiJT.  3.  The  cannons,  arms,  projectiles,  powder,  combustibles,  and  finally  the  salaries 
and  provisions  of  the  sailors,  shall  be  at  the  sole  charge  of  Mr.  Bullock. 

Akt.  i).  The  ships  are  to  be  provided  with  an  engine  of  30Q  horse-power,  at  20»l 
kilograms  the  liorse.  constructed  by  Mr.  Mazeline,  of  Havre. 

AuT.  6.  The  two  ships  shall  be  admitted  and  ready  to  make  their  trial  trips  in  ten 
months.  • 

Art.  9.  The  price  of  each  of  these  ships  is  fixed  at  the  sum  of  2,000,000  francs,  which 
shall  be  paid  at  Paris,  one-tifth  down. 

Art.  11.  Mr.  Bullock  has  designated  the  house  of  Tl.  Erlanger  &,  Co.  as  the  one 
charged  with  eft'ecting  the  payments  at  Paris  and  with  accepting  the  financial  condi- 
tions of  the  present  agreement. 

The  17th  of  July,  Mr.  Yoruz,  sr.,  writes : 

/  hare  received  to-daij  a  letter  from  Arnoiix,  at  Bordeaux,  who  nayn  that  Arman  him  ,/i;v/ 
fihjned  the  agreement  for  two  iron-clad  t/un-boat.s  of  three  hundred  horse-power  for  2,000,000 
francs  each. 

Finally,  on  the  12th  of  August,  !\rr.  Bullock,  remaining  charged  by 
Articles  of  the  agreement  of  Julj'  18th,  above  named,  with  i)ro- 
[272]    viding  cannons,  arni)--,  projec*tiles,  &c.,  for  the  two  ironclad  gun 
boats,  addressed  to  Mr.  Voruz  the  following  letter  : 

Liverpool,  August  12,  13C3. 

I  have  received,  Mr.  Voruz,  your  letter  of  the  4th  instant,  with  statements  of  the 
price  of  the  30-poun<l  cannon  and  accessories.  It  is  impossible  for  me  to  say  whether 
I  shall  give  you  a  positive  and  direct  order  for  such  cannon  before  learning  from  Cap- 
tain Blakeley  how  his  own  model  of  hooped  cannon  has  been  received. 

I  should  be  glad,  however,  to  make  an  arrangement  with  you  if  we  can  agree  upon 
the  conditions.  We  will  discuss  all  this  when  I  go  to  Nantes.  It  is  my  intention  to 
intrust  my  aflairs  to  as  few  hands  as  possible,  aiul  I  hope  we  sh.all  agree  in  all  essential 
points  in  such  manner  that  our  relations  may  proceed  on  a  larger  scale,  even  in  case 
of  peace.  Our  government  will  have  need,  doubtless,  during  a  certain  period,  of 
sending  to  France  for  its  vessels  and  engines,  and,  so  far  as  I  am  personally  concerned, 
I  should  be  much  pleased  if  our  past  relations  should  lead  to  orders  still  more  consid- 
erable in  the  future. 

Will  you,  if  you  i)lea8e,  inform  me  if  the  corvettes  are  progressing,  and  tell  me  when 
the  second  j>ayments  will  be  due  ? 

I  shall  write  you  a  week  before  my  arrival  at  Nantes. 

BULLOCK. 

[273]        *The  terms  of  this  letter  apply  evidently  to  the  project  of  arm 

ing  the  two  iron-clad  gun-boats,  the  construction  of  which  was 

the  object  of  the  agreement  executed  at  Bordeaux  the  16th  of  July,  be 

Iwcen  ^rman  and  Bullock.    This  latter,  a  captain  in  the  service  of  the 


,[274] 


1 275] 


S'G 

;he  oxclusivo 

tion  of  the 
me  he  bad 
at  Nantes, 
ich  two  arc 
hco  in  the 
he  govern 
n  utensils, 

he  IGth  of 

epiity  of  the 

Hock,  actiiif; 

'  t»f  attorney 

la  Clians('ii' 

rnis,  to  con- 
hilts  of  wood 
id  turrets,  in 

y  the  salaries 

>ower,  at  2W 

trips  in  ten 

'raucs,  whicli 

i,  as  the  one 
imcial  coud  i  - 


man  hat  jusi 
for  2,000;00() 

iharged  by 
with  pro- 
chid  gun- 


1 12,  18G3. 

ineuts  of  tlio 
say  whethoi 
ig  from  Cfip- 

1  agree  upon 
intentiou  to 
all  essential 
even  in  case 
n  period,  of 
y  concerned, 
more  consid- 

;ell  me  when 


lULLOCK. 

jct  of  arm 
which  was 
f  July,  be 
nee  of  the 


COUNTER    CASK    OF   THK    UNITED    STATES. 
I 


27 


)onfederate  States  of  the  South,  has  acted  by  the  order  and  for  the  ac- 
30unt  of  his  fjorenment.  •  It  is  impossible  not  to  understand  that  these 
two  gun-boats,  as  well  as  the  four  ships,  for  which  the  agreement  of  the 
hsth  of  the  preceding  April  had  been  concluded,  are  destined  for  the 
[service  of  the  Confederate  States  of  the  South  in  the  war  which  they 
[are  carrying  on  with  the  Federal  States  of  the  North. 
I  The  material  i)roof  of  these  facts  results  too  evidently  from  the  agree- 
jments  concluded  between  the  different  persons  who  have  participated 
[in  their  fultillment,  and  from  the  correspondence  exchanged  between 
[them  for  the  regulation  of  their  particular  interests. 

These  facts  are  of  the  gravest  importance.  Expressly  forbidden  to 
fall  Frenchmen  by  the  imperial  declaration  of  the  10th  of  June,  18G1, 
Ithey  constitute  flagrant  violations  of  the  principles  of  the  law  of  nations 
land  of  the  duties  imposed  upon  the  subjects  of  every  neutral  power; 
I  duties,  the  loyal  observance  of  which  is  the  Ibremost  guarantee  of  the 
! respect  due  to  the  liberty  of  neutral  states  and  to  the  dignity  of  their 
*  flags.  These  are  acts  of  manifest  hostility  against  one  of  the  two  bel- 
ligerent parties  in  regard  to  whom  the  French  govcrn?nent  has  resolved 
s  to  maintain  a  strict  neutrality. 

S  [''i~4]  *  It  is  necessary  to  avoid  (says  Vattel,  lib.  Ill,  chaj).  7)  confounding  what  is  allowed 
jl  to  a  nation  free  from  all  engagements  from  what  it  may  do  if  it  expects  to  he 

^treated  as  perfectly  neutral  in  a  war.  So  long  as  a  neutral  people  desires  securely  to 
i«eiijoy  that  position,  they  shouM  show,  in  all  things,  an  exact  impartiality  toward 
'tho.se  who  carry  on  war.'  For,  if  this  jx'ople  /acort  one  to  the  pieindiee  of  the  other,  it 
ijcannot  complain  when  the  latter  treats  it  as  an  adherent  and  ally  of  its  enemy.  Its 
loeutrality  would  be  ixfraitdiileiit  iieiilraHtji,  of  which  no  one  wishes  to  be  the  dupe. 
f  This  iiupartiality  (adds  Vattel)  which  a  neutral  people  onght  to  observe,  com- 
[>rises  two  things  :  tiie  refusal  to  jtrotect  or  voluntarily  to  furnish  either  troops,  arms, 
lunitions,  or  anything  of  direct  service  in  war. 

These  are  acts  of  hostility  which,  forbidden  by  the  law  of  nations,  are 
^|characteri/-ed  as  crimes  Jtiid  misdemeanors  by  ti:e  French  laws,  wliich 
|decree  their  repression  under  penalties.  Article  84  of  the  penal  code  is 
/:  conceived  in  the'following  terms  : 

Whoever,  hy  hostile  acts  not  approved  hj/  the  government,  shall  hare  exposed  the  state  to  a 
id'claratlon  of  war,  shall  he  i)unhhed  witli  banishment,  and,  if  war  is  the  result,  irilh 
\  di'portation. 

|27o]  This  provision  of  the  law  is,  in  the  opinion  of  the  *undersigned, 
evidently  applicable  to  the  authors  aiul  accomplices  of  the  facts 
recapitulated  in  the  foregoing. 

Whatever  may  be  the  motives  and  whatever  the  character  of  the 
strug-gle  so  deplorably  carried  on  in  the  heart  of  the  American  Union, 
whether  it  be  considered  as  a  civil  war  or  as  an  insurrection  of  a  part 
of  the  American  nation -against  the  establishe<l  Government,  whether 
one  regards  the  separation  which  is  seeking  to  effect  itself  by  force  of 
arms  as  a  division  of  the  nation  into  two  distinct  bodies — into  two 
difl'ereut  peoples — war  between  these  two  parts,  Vattel  continues,  falls  in 
all  respects  icitkin  the  pale  of  a  public  war  between  two  (liferent  nations. 

The  nations  which  do  not  wish  to  be  forced  to  take  part  in  this  war 
should  keep  themselves  within  the  strict  limits  of  the  neutrality  which 
they  proclaim.  In  the  midst  of  the  internal  dissension  of  the  American 
nation,  in  the  peaceful  state  existing  between  France  and  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  in  the  relations  of  amity  and  commerce 
which  unite  the  two  countries,  there  is  no  hostile  act  that  can  provoke 
more  irritation  and  awaken  against  France  juster  grievances  than  giving 
protection  and  furnishing  naval  armaments  by  the  French  to  the  enemy 
of  the  Government  of  Washington,  by  means  of  treaties  with  the  con- 
federates  and  of  naval  constructions  and  the  fabrication  of  weap- 


I 


^^! 


2« 


TREATY    OF    WA-iHINOTON J'A"KKK   AC  (  OMI'ANYING 


jl'TOJ    OILS  of  war.  ( aiiit'd  on  i»ul>lic'ly  *iu  tlie  poj-ts,  sliip  yanls,  and  woil;- 
ishops  of  rranee. 

Tho  action  of  parties  uiiiU'itaking  those  aiinaineuts  is  all  the  iiion- 
eoinp''^»'nisiiijr,  and  exposes  our  eoiintry  all  the  more  to  the  »lan<;<'r  u\ 
Iteiii}^  considered  hostile,  and  of  j)rovokin{jf  against  itself  a  declaration 
of  v,ar.  for  the  reasun  that  the  arniaiuents  in  question  are  made  witii 
the  regular  authorization  of  the  Frencii  administration.  Jt  is  no  kuigf: 
;i  case  for  the  application  of  the  princijdes  which  ordinarily  govern  ii. 
I'cgard  to  neutral  nations,  the  conse(pien(!esof  shipments  of  iontudiand. 
Although  navigating  under  a  neutral  tlag,  the  shipjters  of  such  mei 
(-•handise,  arms,  munitiuns,  ami  all  material  prepared  foi-  war,  are  aloin 
responsible  :  they  can  be  seized  and  declared  as  prize — their  Hag  does 
not  cover  them — btit  there  results  no  reponsibility  on  the  part  of  tlu' 
government  to  which  such.  .shii)pers  ami  titters-out  belong,  Jn  the  agree 
mentsand  in  the  execution  of  the  agreements  entered  into  between  tin- 
i'rench  builders  and  the  agents  of  the  Confe<lerate  States,  the  naiiif 
and  authority  of  the  French  government  have  been  comjuomiseil  by 
the  authorizations  accorded. 

The  facts  then  present  themselves  with  the  character  of  a  hostile  ac; 
on  the  part  of  our  government  against  the  ('Ovei'umont  of  the  IJiiitei! 
States, 

With  this  character,  the  facts  may  then  expose  France  to  a  deilani 
tion  of  war. 
[I'TTJ  •  *Dut^  it  may  l)e  tndy  said  that  this  ai»parent  compromise  of  tin- 
French  government  is  simply  the  result  of  deceit  pnuticed  l)y  tbt 
<onstructors  and  ]>arties  to  the  agreement  of  the  15th  of  April,  who. 
by  misrepresentation  of  the  destination  of  the  ships,  deceived  the  min 
ister.s  of  marine  and  of  war. 

Let  the  explanations  loyally  given  by  government  to  government,  let 
the  withdrawal  of  the  authorizations  granted  to  Armau  and  Voruz  ic 
move  all  complaint  and  recrinnuatiou  on  part  of  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment: the  criminal  character  of  the  acts  ot  which  these  gentlemen 
and  their  co-operators  have  rendered  themselves  guilty  will  not  be  mod 
tied,  and  they  will  have  none  the  less  committed  hostile  acts  which  expose 
France  to  a  declaration  of  war ;  they  are  then  within  the  case  provided 
for  in  the  text  of  article  84  of  the  penal  code.  They  have  no  right  to 
allege  that  they  have  been  legally  authorized  by  the  Government. 

The  fraud  which  they  have  practiced  vitiating  the  very  essence  of  tlir 
acts  of  which  they  would  pretend  to  take  advantage,  their  guilt  is  therein 
aggravated  in  the  eyes  of  French  justice. 

There  are  other  of  our  laws  whose  provisions  the  contractors  and  par 
ties  to  the  agreements  of  the  15th  of  April  and  of  the   10th  of  July. 

18G3,  have  fraudulentlj'  eluded. 
[L»78J        *The  law  of  the  24th  of  May,  18;j4,  declares : 

Ai:t.  3.  Every  person  who.  without  Itoiug  thereunto  legally  authorized,  shall  ha\r 
niauulactured  t>r  coiujileteil  anus,  cartridjifcs,  and  other  uiuuitions  of  war,  shall  I" 
punished  with  imprisonment  from  one  Uionth  to  two  years,  and  with  a  tine  of  froin 
sixteen  to  a  thousand  francs. 

Akt.  4.  The  misdemeanors  provided  for  by  the  precedin<;  articles  shaU  be  adjud<;c«l 
by  the  tribunals  of  correctional  police;  the  anus  and  munitions  uuinufactured  withon; 
authorization  !<h(iU  ht  votijhraitd. 

In  the  interest  of  the  development  of  French  manufacturers  and  oi  I 
foreign  commerce,  a  royal  ordinance  of  the   12th  of  July,  1847,  has] 
regulated  the  application  of  this  law  of  1834,  and  the  formalities  which 
are  to  be  observed  by  the  manufacturers  of  arras. 

We  read  in  the  first  article  of  the  ordinance  of  the  12th  of  July  : 
Conformably  to  article  'i  of  the  law  of  the  '24tli  of  May,  1H34.  every  person  who  sli.ill  j 


■^ 


M(; 


(UlNiKli    (A-i;    OK    THI-:    IMIKI)    .>1ATKS. 


ami  woii  ■ 

,  the  iiioir 
danj^rr  (ti 
U'cl  a  ration 
made  witii 
<  no  loll};'': 
jLtovt'in  ii. 
■out  I  ((!>((  ltd. 

such     IIKM 

•,  arc  aloiii' 
r  tla;»'  «l<)«'s 
part  of  tln' 
I  tlieay;r<'f 
('tween  tli«' 
.  the  nanit'  ■ 
n)inise(l  hy 

lif)stile  ar; 
the  l.'nitei! 

)  a  tleehuii 

ruise  of  th»' 
iced  by  the 
April,  who. 
ed  the  min 

rninent,  \vx 
\  Voruz  IT 
states  Go\  • 
gentlemen 
otbe  mod 
lieh  expost 
se  provided 
no  right  to 
meut. 
5euce  of  thi 
t  is  thereh\ 

ors  and  par 
th  of  July. 


I'd,  shall  lia\< 

war,  shall  l" 

line  of  fmii' 

I  lie  atl.judgi'l 
lued  withon; 

rers  and  ot  j 
,  184.7,  hasj 
ities  whicli 

July  : 

sou  who  filiall 


Idt'sirc  !o  inakf  or  rmi'.ti  iirt  .iriri-«  <<('  ";tr  foi'  thi-  ii.tf  of  .>Iii|i>  nC  rominiM'cc  ^liall  prcvi- 
IommIv  olitaiii  uiitliori/iitioii  hi'in  our  niinihti'r  sccrctarv  <>t'  Hfatf  tor  the  (lt']iiirtiin'iit  of 
Ivar  aiwl  from  oiir  tiiiiiistiM  MTi^'tarv  ol^tatt-  for  thi'  (l<'|iartiiii'iit  ol'  iMariiic  and  of  tlir 
Icoloiiics.  HO  far  u>  ri'liiti-^' 'to  tiiiiiioii  and  niunitions. 

:7l>i       •Praetically  these  provisions  of  the  ordinance,  whieh  seem  to  be 
applieabh'  only  to  onr  eommereial  marine,  iiave  been   extended 
[to  tiie  niannfactiiie  and  debvery  of  implements  of  war  for  foreign  com- 
jmeree. 

In  order  to  obtain  the  authoiizations  always  re(juired  in  such  cases 
land  to  provide  for  the  delivery  to  the  «'onfederates  of  the  armaments  of 
war  whi<'h  they  had  engaged  to  furnish  them,  Messrs.  Armanand  Voruz 
[aildressed  their  demands  to  the  ministers  of  nnirine  and  of  war. 

The  authorizations  have  been  ac«tordedthem;  they  haveeven  obtained 
[permission  to  visit  the  government  eHtablishments,  in  order  to  jtrotit  by 
Ithe  improvements  there  ertected.  It  is  in  view  of  these  authorizations, 
which  he  declared  se«'med  to  him  sufficient,  that  the  dii)lomatic  agent  of 
[the  confederates  latities.  on  the  <>th  of  June,  lSti3,  the  treaty  concluded 
[tiie  l.'ith  of  April  preceding  between  Messrs.  Arman  and  Bullock. 

IJiit,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  letter  addressed  by  Arman  to  the  minister 
tof  nmrine  on  the  1st  of  June,  it  was  only  by  willfully  deceiving  the 
[minister  with  regard  to  the  destination  of  the  armaments  with  which 
Ithey  desired  t(t  supply  the  four  ships  constructed  at  lUtrdeaux  and  at 
llsantes,  that  tiiese  gentlemen  caused  to  be  accorded  them  the  authori- 
zations whicii  they  unduly  solicited. 
IfL'SOi  *Such  authorization,  surreptitiously  obtained,  ought  then  to  be 
i  considered  as  null  and  of  no  etteet.     Alessrs.  Arman.  Voruz,  an<l 

•|their    accomplices   are    then   in    violation  of   the  law  of  the  24th    of 
"May,  is;'>l,  and  liabl(>  to  the  correctional  penalties  whi(!h  it  decrees. 
Tlu'  crime  and  misdemeanor  resulting  from  the  violation  of  article  S4 
of  the  penal  code,  and  of  the   law  of  1834,  constitute  ^Messrs.  Arman 
and  \'oruz,  and  those  interoted  with  them,  ofendcm  Hijainut  the  prohibi 
tion.s  and  recommendations  mnfained  in  the    imperial   declaration   of  the 
lU/A  of  'tune,  and  should  l»e,  as  declared  in  that  declaration,  prosecuted 
■  cuiifojinably  to  the  pro\  isions  of  the  law. 

'■■      The  acts  which  ought  to  give  rise  to  these  legal  prosecutions  have 
-I'l'iMi  committed  to  the  prejudice  and  against  the  security  of  the   Gov- 
ernment of  the  I'nited  States.  ' 

This  (lovernment  has  the  undou'oted  riglit,  as  has  every  foreign  gov- 
fi  nment,  to  demand  before  the  French  tribunals  the  repression  an<l  the 
nparation  ot  a(rts  committed  in  France  which  ar*  pr«'judicial  to  it. 

Here  the  i)rejudiceis  incontestalde.  because,  indop(u<lently  of  the  de- 
livery of  the  ships  and  of  their  armaments  of  war,  the  notorious  fact  of 
(••nstruction  and  armament  in  France,  under  the  apparent  authorization 
of  the  French  government,  of  ships  of  war  destined  for  the  con 
I -SI  I  federates,  was  in  itself,  for  the  latter,  a  power*ful  encourr-.^e  iient 
to  sustain  the  struggle,  and  thus  an  incalculable  preju  '<  r  was 
oltero«I  to  the  Federal  Government. 

It  remains  for  the  undersigned  to  indicate  to  the  Government  of  the 
L'nited  States  what  judicial  means  may  be  resorted  to  to  obtain  from  the 
offenders  the  satisfaction  due  from  them,  ami  what  this  satisfaction 
should  be. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  can  prosecute  before  the  French 
tribunals  on  account  of  the  acts  whose  criminality  has  just  been  estab 
iished,  and  especially  on  account  of  the  crime  provided  for  by  article  84 
of  the  p«'iial  code.    This  coinphunt  should  be  intrusted  either  to  the  dili 


i  % 


30 


TRKATV    OF    \VASHIX(iTO\ PAPERS    ACCOMI'ANYINO 


fjoncoof ;»  s|H'(;ial  aiithori/cd  n;;eiir.  or  u]>oii  itros«*ciitioii  by  tlie  luiiiiHtci 
l)UMiipoti'iitiary  of  the  L'nittMl  Stat***  to  \lw  pn»  Ktau-  iinprrial. 

Vout'ovn\',\h]y  to  the  provisions  of  articles  «J^j  and  (it  of  the  code  ot 
criminal  instructions,  corn|daiiit  may  be  inatle.  either  before  tlie  ma}j;i.s 
trate  of  the  phice  where  the  crime  «»r  otlense  has  been  connnitted,  oi 
before  the  niaj;istrate  of  the  residencf  of  the  criminal. 

As  there  are  several  accomplices  and  ajrents  incriminated  by  the  acts, 
the  judjje  of  the  residence  of  one  of  them  is  c<»nipetent  to  receive  the 
complaint,  and  all  the  accomplices  will  l»e  called  before  him  by  reason 
of  the  connection  of  the  acts  denoiince<l.  Messrs.  liullock  and  Slidell, 
agents  of  the  confederates,  are.  althoii;:h  foreigners,  legally  responsible 
before  the  French  tribunals  by  reas«in  of  the  criminal  acts  which  they 
have  instigated,  or  in  which  they  have  participated  upon  French  soil. 
The  complaint  shouhl  set  forth  the  ^Timinal  acts,  and  should  be  sup- 
ported by  justilicative  documents. 

To  obtain  the  decree  of  satisfaction  which  it  is  propose«l  to  demand, 
the  American  (lovernment  should  by  its  special  agent  declare  that  it 
intends  to  constitute  it.self  a  civil  party:  that  is  to  say,  that  it  intends  to 

sustain  the  pro.secutitm  concuri-eiitly  with  the  public  minister. 
[liSl'J        *In  constituting  itself  a  civil  jiarty,  the  (iovernment  of  the 
Tnited  States  should  be  informed  that  it  may  be  held  to  furnish 
a  guarantee _/■/«//('«/«»/  Holri,  according  to  the  terms  of  article  100  of  the 
code  of  <'ivil  procedure,  thus  conceive<l : 

All  t'onijin  claimants,  jtrincipals.  or  attorney*  will  hi?  held,  if  the  (loft!ii<liint  ^eqIlir('^ 
it,  without  «'Xt<'iitioii.  to  fiUHisb  ytiarautee  to  i>aT  expeusesaiul  peiiultiL's  to  which  they 
may  l>e  condemned. 

Finally,  it  **hould  be  observed  that  one  of  the  persons  against  whom 
the  complaint  should  be  collectively  made  is  a  member  of  the  "orps 
Legislatif,  and  that,  by  rea.son  of  his  position.  l»efore  making  cor  'nt. 
the   i)ublic  mini.ster  must   demand  of  the  a.s.sembly  authorizr  tn 

pro.secute,  conformably  to  article  11  of  the  decree  of  February,  ISoJ. 

In  case  it  should  be  desire<l  to  prosecute  only  for  the  violation  of  the 
law  of  the  24th  of  May,  18^34,  and  of  the  ordinance  of  1847,  instead  ot 
submitting  the  complaint  to  the  juge  triHStnution  or  of  lodging  it  with  | 
the  procureur  impt'rial,  the  action  .should  lie  brought  before  a  correctional 
tribunal ;  the  American  Government  may  then  proceed  by  direct 
[283]  citation,  and  *may  bring  before  the  correctional  judge  its  demand 
for  civil  satisfaction,  damages,  and  interest. 

Finally,  in  case  the  Government  of  the  United  States  should  renounce 
its  intention,  by  reason  of  the  facts  in  question,  to  prosecute  criminally 
by  way  of  complaint,  or  by  simple  correctional  action,  it  may  separate 
the  civil  from  the  public  action,  and  proceed  against  those  who  have 
acted  to  its  prejudice,  in  an  action  before  the  civil  tribunals,  reserving 
to  the  public  minister  the  right  of  public  action  for  repression  of  crimes  | 
and  offenses,  if  he  shall  judge  proi>er. 

Before  the  civil  tribunal,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has 
only  to  appeal  iu  judicial  proceetlings  for  the  acts  from  which  it  has  i 
suffered  to  the  i>rovisions  of  article  1-3S2  of  the  civil  code,  where  it  is  j 
written: 

Every  act  wh.itsoever  of  a  man  which  canaes  loss  to  another,  obliges  him,  by 
whose  fault  it  has  been  committed,  to  repair  the  Io«<«. 

As  a  reparation  of  the  crime  or  offen.se  committed  against  it,  the  Fed- 
eral Government  will  demand,  nnder  the  title  of  indemnity,  the  confis- 
cation of  the  objects  constrncte<l  and  the  manufactures  made  to  its 
prejudice.    It  may  even,  after  having  commenced  the  process, 
[284]    demand,  as  a  •protective  measure,  anthorization  to  seize  provision- 


COINTER    CASK    OK    TIIK    INKIKK    STATKS. 


81 


ally,  and  at  its  own  risk  and  peril,  all  the  objects  constrneted  and 
iiiamit'aetured,  bein^  elements  of  the  criminal  acts,   whieli   leparation 
may  be  ordered   before  the  provisions  of  the  penal  laws  shall  have  re- 
ceived their  a|)plication  before  the  competent  jiuisdiction. 
Prononnced  at  Paris,  the  1-th  of  November,  ISO.'). 

IIKUUYKH, 
AncUn  lUUonnicr  <1c  rOrdre  ikn  Arociitx  dc  Vatin 


1 285]  *F. 

COKRKSrONDENCE  llELATIVE  TO  ARM  AN  JJAMS. 

Mr.  Thtyton,  United  States  minister,  to  Mr.  Setcnrd,  Secretary  of  State. 

I'Aills,  September  18,  ISiill 

Sir:  I  have  this  mornin<;  (railed  the  attention  of  Mr.  Dronyn  de 
lihuys  to  the  evidence  showin;^-  that  at  least  four,  if  not  tive,  slii|)s  are 
being  built  in  the  ship-yanls  at  Bordeaux  and  Nantes  for  the  confeder- 
ates. This  evidence  is  the  same  as  that  sent  to  yon  from  the  Paris  con- 
sulate, and  which  I  referred  to  in  my  dispatch  No.  344.  It  is  conclu- 
sive, 1  think,  as  to  the  facts  charged.  ^Ir.  Drowyn  de  Lhuys  expressed 
himself  as  greatly  surprised,  and  I  doubt  not  lie  was  so.  He  assured 
me  he  had  no  knowledge  of  anything  of  the  kind,  ami  that  the  government 
would  maintain  its  neutrality.  He  thanks  nie  for  calling  his  attention 
promptly  to  this  matter,  the  importance  of  whicli  ho  fully  recognized. 

He  re(piested  copies  of  the  original  papers  ;  said  that  he  would  at  on(!e 
investigate*  the  facts  and  the  French  legislation  bearing  on  the  question, 

and  then  let  me  know  what  would  be  done. 

I  [28GJ       *lt  seems  to  uie  that  their  action  on  this  subject  is  likely  to  afford 

a  pretty  good  test  of  their  future  inteutions.    As  to  what  the  law 

[may  be,  it  does  not,  I  apprehend,  much  matter ;  if  they  mean  that  good 

relations  with  our  country  shall  be  preserved,  tbey  will  stop  the  building 

lof  these  ships,  or  at  least  the  arming  and  delivering  of  them ;  if  they 

[mean  to  break  with  us,  they  will  let  them  go  on. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant. 


Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  etc. 


WM.  L.  DAYTON. 


Mr.  Dayton,  United  States  minister,  to  J/r.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State. 

Paris,  October-  8,  18G3. 
Sir  :  The  minister  of  marine  has  been  absent  some  days  recently, 
land  this  has  been  assigned  to  me  by  Mr.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  as  a  reason 
{•why  my  communication  as  to  the  rebel  ships  now  being  built  at  Bor- 
[deaux  and  Nantes  had  not  been  definitetly  answered. 

I  left  some  additional  evidence  with  him  this  morning,  to  wit :  copy  of 

contract  between  Arman  and  Bullock  for  building  two  iron  clads, 

[287]    dated  *16th  July  last ;  copy  of  letter  from  Iilmile  Erlanger  to  Voruz, 

sr.,  dated  9th  June  last;  copy  of  letter  from  Mazeline  &  Co.  to 


'  Si 


:v2 


'IfJKATV    OF    WASHINGTON — I'AI'ERS    ACCOMrANVING 


\'<»ruz.  sr.,  dated  L'.id  Jiiiu'  last;  copy  of  letter  from  O.  ]).  Toilet,  and 
L.  IJabiii,  and  K.  Dubijieoii  and  tils,  to  Voruz,  lOtli  June  last;  copy  ot 
a;j:reement  between  KuUock  and  A'oruz,  dated  September  17,  1803,  in 
creasing  tbe  nninbe>'  of  cannon  contracted  for  fiom  forty-eight  to  tifty 
>ix,  and  the  number  of  shells  from  five  thousand  to  twelve  thousand. 

Mr.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  di«l  not  intinmte  any  doubt  as  to  the  tacts 
<'harged,  and  the  minister  of  marine,  he  said,  Imd  informed  iiim  that  in 
.u:ranting  the  authorization  to  build  and  arm  these  vessels  he  did  it  as  a 
matter  of  course,  as  he  had  done  in  like  cases  before,  supposing  that 
the  reiuesentatiou  in  the  application,  that  they  were  intended  for  the  | 
China  sea,  &c.,  was  true.  JJut  Mr.  Drouyu  de  Lhuys  said  that  he,  tlio 
minister  of  marine,  entirely  agreed  with  him  that  no  violation  of  tlic 
neutrality  of  France  should  be  permitted,  and  he  (>[r.  Drouyn  lU* 
lihuys)  said  I  might  be  assured  that  it  would  not  be. 
^  I  am.  sir,  vour  obedient  servant, 

WILLI A:N[  L.  DAYTON. 

Hon.  Wii-MAM  II.  ^SK^VAIll). 

Scrrrhnij  (»/'  t<t((ti'. 


['JS-Sl     *Mf.  de  l.huis,  winl-:t^r  of  foreign  afairs,  to  Mr.  Jhiyton,  Unifcil 

i<tal€S  minister. 


[Translation.] 

Takis,  October  15,  ISO'.l 

Siii :  You  have  done  me  the  honor  to  write  to  me,  to  call  niy  attentioi, 
to  agreements  entered  into  (marches  pa.ss«''S)  in  France,  according  to  in 
fornjation  which  you  have  comnumicated  to  me,  for  the  construction  and 
«lelivery  to  the  seceded  States  of  several  vessels  armed  for  war.  Yoi; 
liave  expressed  the  desire  that  the  ofliicial  authorization  accorded  for  tin 
armament  of  these  vessels  might  be  withdrawn,  and  that  the  governmen* 
of  the  Emperor  might  take  measures  which  it  .should  judge  proper,  ti' 
juevent  the  completion  and  delivery  of  the  ves.sels  themselves.  I 
iiastened  to  speak  of  this  matter  to  my  colleague  of  the  department  n 
the  marine,  reconunending  it  very  particularly  to  his  examination,  i  d«' 
not  believe  that  1  can  do  i)etter  than  to  transmit  to  you,  sir,  a  copy  •> 
the  answer  which  he  has  just  addressed  to  me.  The  only  information 
w  hich  the  <lepartment  of  the  nmrine  had  directly  received  concernin, 

the  operation  in  questi«m  attributetl  to  them,  as  you  will  see,  is  n' 
[280]    such  a  character  that,  up  to  the  present  moment,  there  *  was  nv\ 

motion  for  hindering  them.    It  is  only,  then,  by  the  explanation> 
which  he  is  going  to  call  forth,  by  the  aid  of  the  papers  which  you  havt  j 
brought  to  my  knowledge,  that  M.  leComtedeCluLsselouj)  Laiibat  shall 
be  able  to  judge  of  the  measures  to  be  taken  conformably  to  our  declarii 
tion  of  neutrality. 

Accept  the  aasuranees  of  the  high  consideration  with  which  I  liave  tlioj 
honor  to  be,  sir,  vour  \erv  humble  and  very  obedient  servant, 

DROUYN  DE  LHUYS. 
Mr.  Dayton. 

Minister  of  the  United  Siates  at  Paris. 


COUNTER  CASE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


33 


roQO]  [*IiicU)snro.] 

.1/.  the  minister  of  the  mavine  to  M.  the  minister  of  forciijn  a  fairs. 

[Translation.] 

Paiiis,  October  12,  18G3. 

M.  THE  Minister  and  deau  Colleacue:  You  !inve  done  mo  t  lie 
honor  to  coniinunicsite  to  me,  the  lioth  of  8t*ptemlK':-  last,  tlii'  copy,  with 
its  annexes,  of  a  letter  from  M.  the  minister  of  the  United  States  at 
Taris,  relative  to  bargains  entered  into  by  INFessrs.  Annan  and  Voru/  for 
the  eonstrn(;tion  and  delivery  to  the  confederate  }jj(»vernment  of  several 
vessels  armed  for  war.  In  pointing;'  out  to  my  attention  the  ;;ravity  of 
this  matter,  which  you  recommend  in  a  manner  alto«jjether  special  to  my 
examination,  you  express  tlie  re;.;ret  that  my  department  ha  '  notthoujiht 
l)roper  to  come  to  an  nnderstandiny  with  that  of  the  foreijr'i  affairs 
before  answerinj;' the  re(piests  of  Mr.  Arman,  wiio  had  obtained  from 
Ithe  marine  the  authori/.ation  to  provide  his  vessel  with  twelve  cannon 
[of  30  pounds.  As  to  that  which  concerns  the  authorization  .s«)licited  by 
Mr.  Arman,  and  which  was  necessary  to  him  bv  the  terms  of  the  or<li- 
liiance  of  the  12th  July,  1847,  1  did  not  believe  I  ou^ht  to  refuse  it  in 
t'onse(pience  of  the  declaration  of  the  constructor,  who  j;ave  me  the 
lassurance,  as  moreover  liis  correspondence  with  my  dei)artment  proves, 
[that  the  vessels  in  construction  in  his  work-yards  were  destined  to  do 
[service  in  the  China  s-  as  and  the  Pacific,  between  China,  Ja[>an,  and 

San  Franci>--cu. 

l[201]       *I  coidd  not,  upon  such  a  declaration,  and  knowing,  besich's, 
I  that  the  vessels  of  commerce  which  mu  i<'ate  the  parts  in  cjuestioii 

Jlou^ht  always  to  be  furnished  with  certain  armament,  in  view  of  the 
■iiumerous  pirates  which  infest  them,  I  could  not,  I  say,  an.swer  nej;a- 
■tively  to  the  request  of  .  Tr.  Aruian,  nor  refuse  Mr.  Voruz  the  pernussion 
■to  mruiufacture  the  canii  >n  intended  to  form  this  armanuMit.  This  last 
■authorization  was  the  conscipience  of  that  given  to  the  constructor  to 

■  ])rovide  his  vessels  with  ar.tillery. 

B     Jn  granting  to  3[r.  Yoruz  the  jjermissiou  to  procure  at  Ueuil  theelnci- 

■  dations  necessary  to  the  manufacture  of  his  cannon,  I  followed  that 
mv'hich  hasalirays  been  done  b>/  my  department  in  analogous  circumstances, 
S  commerce  only  ex«!eptionaily  giving  itself  to  a  manufacture  which,  in 
EFrance,  is  seldom  carried  on,  save  by  the  government.  As  to  the  re- 
Hgrets  expressed  by  your  exci'llency  that  the  department  of  foreign  af- 
Rlairs  has  not  previously  been  consulted,  I  win  cause  you  to  remark  that  it 

■  was  a  (piestion  of  arms  tf»  be  caused  to  be  manufactured  by  private  in- 

■  dustry,  and  not  of  material  of  war  appertaining  to  the  state  and  delivered 
Hby  the  magazines  of  the  state.  This  ditlerence  will  not  escape  yo  o-  cx- 
m  cellency,  and  I  would  not  have  lailed  to  come  to  an  understa  .ding 
m  [_'!)2]  *with  you  if  there  had  been  asked  of  my  department  arm  of  the 
H  marine.  Upon  the  whole,  my  dei)artment  has  only  conformed  in 
||this  circumstance  to  its  prece«h'nts.  It  could  only  trust  to  the  declara- 
lltion  of  Messrs.  Arnmn  and  Yoruz,  aiul  it  could  not  be  responsible  for  the 

■  unlawful  operations  which  mighv  be  undertaken.   I  am  going, however,  to 

■  call  forth  from  ^lessrs.  Annan  and  Yoruz  exphmations  upon  the  facts  of 

■  which  you  have  spoken  to  me,  and  you  may  rest  assure*!,  M.  and  dear col- 

■  h'ague,  that  the  <lepartment  of  the  marine  will  continue,  as  it  has  done 
Hii)>  to  the  present  day,  to  do  everything  which  shall  be  necessary  acconl- 
■liig  to  the  wish  of  the  Emperor,  and  conformably  to  the  declaration  of 
»his  government,  in  order  that  the  most  .strict  neutrality  be  observed  in 
■that  which  concerns  the  war  which  desolates  America  at  this  moiuent,&c. 
m  CHASSELOCr  LAUBAT. 

■  3  A II 


34 


TREATY   OF    WASHINGTON — PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 


Mr.  Dronyn  de  Lhui/,s,  minister  of  fon'ifiii  affairs,  to  Mr.  Dayton,  United 

States  mini  titer. 

[Trausliition.] 

Paris,  Oetoher  22,  1803. 

Sill :  I  have  tlui  honor  to  announce  to  yon,  as  a  sequence  to  my 
[20;>]  h'tter  of  the  *loth  of  this  in( -nth,  that  ]\[.  the  minister  of  marine 
has  Just  notified  Mr.  Voruz  of  tlie  withdrawal  of  tiie  authoriza- 
tion whicii  he  had  obtained  for  the  armament  of  four  vessels  in  course 
of  construction  at  Xantes  and  Bordeaux.  Notice  has  also  been  }»'v<^ii  to 
Mr.  Arman,  whose  attention  has  been  at  the  same  time  called  to  the 
responsibility  which  he  mijijht  incur  by  acts  in  opposition  to  our  declar- 
ation of  the  18th  of  Vune,  l.SGl.  These  measures  testify,  sir,  to  tho 
scrupulous  care  which  the  government  of  the  Emperor  brings  to  the  ob- 
servance of  the  rules  of  a  strict  neutrality.  It  is  in  order  to  give  to 
your  Government  a  new  proof  of  our  disposition  in  this  respect  that  we 
have  not  hesitated  to  take  into  consideration  the  information,  the 
authenticity  of  which  you  have  allirnu'd  to  me. 

Accept  the  assurances  of  the  high  consideration  with  which  I  have 
the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  very  humble  and  very  obedient  servant, 

UUOUYN  DE  LIIUYS. 
Mr.  Dayton, 

Minister  of*he  United  States  at  Paris. 


Mr.  Dayton,  United  States  minister,  to  Mr.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State. 

[Extract.] 
[294]         '  *Paiiis,  Xovemher  27,  18G3. 

Sir  :  I  yesterday  saw  Mr.  Dronyn  de  l^huys  for  the  first  time 
within  the  last  fortnight.  His  absence  from  Paris,  and  pressing  engage- 
ments the  week  before,  have  ])rcvented  his  receiving  the  diplomatic 
corps  for  business.  *  *  *  Ue  said,  furthermore,  that  he  had  him- 
self personally  informed  Messrs.  Armau  and  Vor.  ^,  (the  constructors 
and  iron-founders,)  engaged  on  the  vessels  now  being  built  at  Bordeaux 
and  Nantes,  that  the  work  thereon  must  cease  unless  they  could  satisfy 
him  that  they  were  honestly  intended  for  another  government;  and  he 
added  to  me  that  he  would  at  once  refer  their*  proceeding  to  the  min- 
ister of  marine.  *«#*♦» 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  L.  DAYTON. 
IIou.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  circ.,  d'c. 


v'<i 


1%, 

I* 


Mr.  Dayton,  United  States  minister,  to  Mr.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State. 

[Extract.] 

Paris,  December  31, 18G3. 
Sir  :    •     *    *    III  my  last  conversation  with  Mr.  Dronyn  dc 
[295]    Liuiys,  he  informed  me  that  *Mr.  Arman,  the  builder  of  these 
vessel^,  was  seeking  purchasers  for  them  other  than  the  confed- 


COrXTER   CASE    OP    THE    rXITKD    STATES. 


3i 


o 


United 


1803. 

3e  to  my 
■  iiiaiiiu! 
ithoriza- 
1  coviise 
{•iveu  to 
1  to  the 
i"  (lecliir- 
;,  to  tiifi 
^  the  ob- 
1  «;ive  to 
that  we 
ion,  the 

h  I  have 

nt, 

lUYS. 


erates,  and  tliat  the  minister  of  marine  did  not  think  liimst'lf  anthor- 
i/('(l,  therefore,  to  prevent  tlieir  e()nii)h'tion,  althou^ii  he  would  la•^vent 
their  being  armed  or  delivered  by  Annan  to  the  confederates. 

I  am.  &e., 

AVM.  L.  DAYTON. 

Hon.  William  U.  Skwaud, 

tSt'eret((ri/  of  St((ft'. 


yf  State. 


Mr.  I)((yfon,  United  States  ininiHter.,  to  .Ifr.  Seirard,  Sevretari/  of  Stnte, 

Takis,  February  ."i,  1804. 
iS'K  :  *  *  *  'M,  Drouyn  de  Lh;;ys  told  me  yester(hiy  that  Arntaii 
(tlie  buihler  of  the  iron-ehid  rams  for  tiie  confederates,  at  iJordeanx)  had 
Just  informed  him  that  he  had  sold  them  tt>  the  Danish  <i\?vernnient,  Itnt 
before  he  (M.  Dronyn  de  Lhnys)  acted  ni)on  that  assumption  this  y;ov- 
(Miiiiient  wouhl  have  tiie  best  and  most  satisfactory  evi(h'nce  of  tlie  cor- 
rei.'tuesN  of  this  statement.  At  i)resent  he  does  not  consider  tlie  state- 
ment of  the  I'act  to  me  as  ollicial,  but  says  he  will  make  it  so  as  soon  as 
he  shall  receive  the  necessary  i)roof.  *  »  ♦  # 

1  am,  sir.  &c., 

WM.  L.  DAYTOX. 
lion.  William  IT.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  dc,  iIt.,  tCc. 


1, 1803. 

Irst  time 
ff  engage- 
iplomatic 
had  him- 
structors 
Bordeaux 
Id  satisfy 
and  he 
the  min 


[200]    *Mr.  Dayton,  United  States  minister,  to  Mr.  Seicard,  S' 

State. 

[Extract.] 


fary  of 


Paris,  February  19,  1804.  . 
Sir  :****•**■' 
M.  Dronyn  de  Lhnys  says  that  ho  believes  the  ironclads  at  Uordeaux 
are  sohl  to  a  neutral,  but  I  received  information  from  Mr.  Wood,  our 
minister  at  Copenhagen,  that  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  of  Denmark 
says  he  does  not  know,  nor  has  he  ever  heard,  of  any  negotiation  for 
the  purchase  or  building  for  that  country  of  ttny  ships  in  France.  M. 
Urouyn  de  Lhuys  tells  me,  and  I  do  not  doubt  but  that  he  has  given 
notice  to  Mr.  Arman  (the  builder  of  the  iron  clads,  and  the  contractor 
for  the  four  other  ships  building  for  the  confederates)  that  France  must 
be  relieved  from  all  trouble  in  reference  to  any  of  them,  a;  d  Arniau 
has  promised  him  that  France  shall  be.  He  says  that  the  four  other 
vessels  are  building  for  commerce,  ami  that  he  can  and  will  sell  them 
to  neutral  parties.  In  the  mean  time,  I  cau  and  will  keep  a  sharp  eye 
to  the  entire  proceeding. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 
Hon.  William  H.  Seward,  * 

Secretary  of  Stat^ 


■•^ii 


IW 


;  i 


3G 


TUEATY    OF    WASHIN^iTOX— PAPERS    ACCOMPANYING 

[297]    *My.  Dayton,  United  States  mini-stet-j  to  Mr.  SewauJ,  Secretary  of 

State. 

Tatjis,  March  11, 18G4. 

Siif :  M.  Droiiyn  do  Lliuys  infoiins  mo  tliat  in  a  locoiit  interviow  with 
Ariuan,  the  shipbuihloi  at  lloideaux,  ho  (Annan)  assurod  him  that  not 
oidy  tlio  iion-chid  vossols  ho  was  bnihliny  at  liordoaux,  but  the  other 
lour  vessels  (two  at  Xantes  and  two  at  IJor<leaux)  would  certainly  be 
disposed  to  neutral  govornments  in  such  nninner  as  to  relieve  France 
Irom  any  trouble  or  responsibility  on  the  subject.  These  vessels,  I  may 
add,  are  in  the  steady  course  of  construction,  the  work  boinj^  constantly 
advanced  upon  thorn. 
I  am,  sir, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 
Hon.  AVillia:>i  If.  Si.WAiiD, 

Secretary  of  State. 


I208J 


*JJLscours  tic  M.  liouJar,  vi  hunt  re  (Vetat. 

[Uu  ;Moiiiteur  Univcrsel,  pa^e  (JTU.— Vciidioili,  13  iiiai  Ifr^GI.] 


Corps  Legislatif,  fcimnce  du  12  mai  18G4.; 

^1.  liouiiEK,  Ministre  d'lJtat ;  ....  Si  j'examine  le  discours  do 
riionoiablo  yi.  Jules  Favre,  en  pronant  ses  objections  dans  un  ordro 
inverse  a  celni  (pi'il  a  adopto,  le  proniier  point  fpie  je  rencontre  est  cetto 
protendue  violation  des  regies  do  la  noutralito  commise  par  la  France 
vis  avis  des  otats  du  iu)rd  do  rAmoi  icjuo. 

Messieurs,  les  (piestions  do  noiitralito,  rotondue  des  devoirs  des  nentres. 
ont  donno,  dans  tons  les  temps,  matiore  a  dos  difticultes,  a  des  contiits 
nombreux.  Je  ne  veux  pas  retracer  ici  les  phiises  diverses  que  le  droit 
des  neutres  a  snbies  dans  lo  code  interinitional ;  mais  ce  que  je  peux 
dire  a  I'honneur  do  la  politique  de  notrepays,  c'ost  (pie  tout  cequ'il  y  a 
en  d'idces  liborales,  i)rogTessives,  t?(''nerouses,  introduites  dans  la  legis- 
lation des  nentros,  est  parti  du  gouvernement  t'ranyais.  [C'estvrai!  c'est 
vrai !] 

Aussi,.  lors  de  la  declaration  de  la  guerre  en  Amrriipio  outre  les  otats 
du  nord  ot  les  etats  du  sud,  nous  n'avons  pas  t'ailli  aces  preco- 
|2l)0j  «lents,  et  nous  avons  pose,  dos  los  premiers  jours,  les  *principes 
de  noutralito  (pii  devaient  rogir  touto  not  re  conduite. 

Dans  la  declaration  du  10  juin  l.SCil,  insoroo  au  3Ioiiiiour,  acte  officiel 
emane  du  souverain,  ii  est  dit  par  a  Particle  3 : 

II  est  iiitonlit  a  tout  Fraiiviiis  do  preiidii'  coiiiiiiissioii  do  rnne  des  deux  parties  pom 
ariner  des  vaisseaux  en  jiuerie,  oil  d'accepter  des  lettres  de  inanpie  poiu- fains  la  course 
maritime,  ou  i\v  coneourir  d'une  maniere  iiuelconque  a  re(|uipement  on  a  I'aruiemeut 
d'uu  navire  <le  guerre  ou  eorsairede  I'luit"  des  deux  parties  liellijrerautes. 

Au  mois  de  juin  18(i;{,  une  demande  a  oto  adressee  pur  deux  con- 
structeurs  i'ranyais  pour  roxocution  de  deux  steamers,  ave(!  I'indication 
(pie  cos  naviros  (itaient  destiiu'vs  a  naviguer  dans  les  mors  de  Chine. 

M.  le  miuistre  des  I'^tats-Unis,  au  tnois  de  docembre  18G3,  a  invo(pi('' 
des  lettres,  des  documents,  (pie,  descirconstancesdont  nous  n'avons  pas 
voulu  approlbndir  le  caractere,  avaient  mis  en  la  possession  de  M.  Day- 
ton, il  u  soutenu  que  cos  navires  etaient  destines  aux  conlod(''r(''s.     Une 

*  empiote  sVst  ouverte  imnu'diatemout. 
|.'UHIJ       Les  armateurs  out  ote   int^nrogi's;  leurs  *(\\plications  ont  (He 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    THE   UNITED    STATES. 


37 


appr^-eiees,  et  I'aiitorisatioii,  uii  instant  donii^e,  a  etc  retiree  par  le 
gonvernenient. 

IMns  tard,  qnelqnos  dontes  se  sont  elevt's  ;  ces  steamers,  qui  ne  sont 
l)as  en  i)artance,  ont  6U''  indiiiues  coiunie  destines  s\  la  Snede.  De 
iionvelles  informations  ont  «''te  i)risc°.  Cette  indication  n'a  pas  parii 
snrtisamaient  d(''montri''e,  et,  a  la  date  dn  I"  mai  1804,  il  y  a  dix  jonrs, 
le  miiiistre  de  la  marine  ecrivait  an  ministre  des  atlairesdtrangeres: 

LtH  naviies  do  giiPiTL' qui)  vons  iKHis  avez   sij^iialrs  no  sortiroiit  des  ports  fran^ais- 
riue  It!  jour  ofi  il  sera  domoutrt'^  d'mio  maiiif-re  i»(»sitive  (|U!*,  leiir  destination  n'aftecte 
jioliit  les  jirincipes  do  neiitralite  que  le  gouverncuieut  frani.-ai.s   vent  riyoureusement 
observer  a  IVyard  des  belligorants. 

.  Voila  la  condnite  qui  a  eto  t.  vnc  sans  ecpiivoqae,  dela  maniere  la  pins 
nette  et  la  idns  precise,  par  le  youvernemcnt  de  I'Eniperenr. 


[301]  *  Speech  of  M.  Roulicr,  minister  of  state. 

[Translation.] 
[From  the  Moiiiteur  Univcrsel,  of  Friday,  May  13,  18G4,  p.  C70.] 

CoRrs  Li^GiSLATiF,  ( Session  of  the  12th  Maif,  1864 J 

!Mr  KouiiER,  Minister  of  State :  If  I  examine  the  speech  of  the  Hon. 
Mr.  J  ales  Favre,  taking  his  objections  in  an  order  the  reverse  of  that 
adopted  by  him,  the  tiist  point  1  meet  is  the  pretended  violation  of  the 
laws  of  nentrality  committed  by  France  against  the  States  of  the  North 
of  America. 

Gentlemen,  questions  of  neutrality,  as  regarding  the  duties  of  neutrals, 
have  been  always  the  causes  of  ditticulties  and  of  numerous  contiicts.  I 
will  not  hole  trace  the  ditl'erent  jthases  tln'ough  which  the  law  of  neu- 
trals lias  passed  in  the  international  code;  but  what  1  maj'  say  to  the 
honor  of  the  p(>licy  of  our  country  is  that  all  liberal,  progressive,  ami 
generous  ideas  introduced  into  the  law  of  neutrals  originated  with  the 
French  goverinnent.  [True,  true.J  Accordingly,  after  the  declination 
ot  war  iii  America  between  the  States  of  the  North  and  the  States  of 
the  South,  we  have  followed  these  precedents,  and  we  announced 
[302]  at  an  early  day  the  princi[»!es  of  neutrality  *  which  were  to  regulate 
our  conduct. 

In  the  declaration  of  the  10th  of  June,  ISGl,  an  ofticial  act  emanating 

from  the  sovereign,  inserted  in  the  Monitenr,  it  is  stated  in  Article  3 : 

All  Freuclinien  are  forbidden  to  take  a  commission  from  either  of  the  two  parties 
to  arui  vessels  of  war,  or  to  aceept  h'tters  of  mar  |ue  for  a  cruise,  or  to  assist  in  any 
manner  in  tho  c(|uipment  or  armauient  of  a  war-vessel  or  privateer  of  either  of  the  bel- 
ligerents. 

fn  the  month  of  June,  1803,  afonnal  request  was  made  by  two  French 
builders  for- the  right  to  construct  two  steamers,  with  the  infonnation 
that  these  vessels  were  intended  to  navigate  the  Chinese  seas.  JNIr.  Day- 
ton, the  minister  of  the  United  States,  in  the  month  of  December,  18(i3, 
called  our  attention  to  certain  letters  and  documents  which  circum- 
stances, into  the  character  of  which  we  have  not  wi.shed  to  inquire,  had 
put  into  his  hands;  he  nuiintained  that  these  vessels  were  for  the  con- 
federates. An  inquiry  was  immediately  instituted  ;  the  owners  were 
(|uestioned;  their  explanations  were  weighed,  and  the  authorization 
ft>rmerly  given  was  withdrawn  by  the  governjnent. 

li.iter,  doubts  arose;  it  was  intimated  that  lese  steamers,  which 
had  not  yet  sailed,  were  intended  for  Swe<len.  New  testimony  was 
taken,  and  this  intimation  not  appearing  to  be  sufticiently  proved,  the 


38 


TREATY   OF    WASHINGTON PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 


[3(».'}J    jiiiiiisttT  of  the  *rnaiiiie  Mioto  to  the  minister  of  forei/^n  attairs, 
niidcr  the  date  of  ."\la.v  1,  ISfil,  ten  days  ayo,  as  ibUows: 

TIn^  vessels  of  war  tr)  wliicli  yon  have  called  our  aHention  sliall  not  leave  the  ports 
of  France  nntil  it  .shall  have;  been  positively  demonstrated  that  their  <lestination  iloes 
not  atleet  the  iiiiiiciides  of  neutrality  which  the  Fn-nch  government  wishes  to  rigidly 
observe  toward  l)oth  lielligerents. 

Sneli  is  the  einidiiet  \vhi(;h  hasboeu  maintained  witliout  equivocation, 
and  in  the  (dearest  and  most  precise  manner,  by  tlie  government  of  the 
Empt-ror. 

*  *  #  #  #  #  # 


Mr.  Jhdjfon,  United  Stfdes  minister, to  Mr.  *Sr«7/>v/,  Scerctart/  of  State. 

Paris,  May  IG,  1804. 

Sir  :  At  a  s])('cial  interview  accorded  to  me  on  Saturday  hist,  M. 
Drouyn  de  Lhnys  informed  me  not  only  that  the  two  ironclads,  now 
being- constructed  by  Arman,  at  Jjordeanx,  under  contract  with  the  (;on- 
federates,  have  been  jtositively  sold  to  a  neutral  power,  but  he  assured 
mc  distinctly  that  the  four  clipper-ships  in  the  course  of  constru(;tion  at 
IJordetiux  and  Nante.«,  under  a  like  (!ontract,  should  not  be  <lelivei-ed  to 
the  confederates.  As  two  of  these  vessels  ar6  approaching comj)lction, 
I  confess  I  was  mu«h  gratitied  by  receiving  this  distinct  assurance. 
[304]  llis  language  was  most  explicit,  and  I  thanked  *him  accordingly. 
1  am,  sir,  «S:c., 

W:sr.  L.  DAYTON. 
Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Sceretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Seicanl,  Secretary  of  State,  to  Mr.  Dayton,  United  States  minister. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  June  1*8,  J80i. 

Sir:  Mr.  (leofroy  has  today  submitted  to  me  a  dispatch  which  has 
been  received  from  M.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys,  in  which  he  states  the  fact 
of  the  sale  of  two  ships,  the  Yeddo  and  the  Osaccii,  which  Arman  built 
for  the  insurgents,  to  alleged  neutrals,  to  be  deliveied  in  lloUand,  sub- 
stantially on  the  same  terms  as  those  which  M.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  made 
in  communicating  that  transaction  to  yourself,  as  yon  have  related  them 
to  us  in  your  dispatches.  In  the  absence  of  fidl  and  definite  informa- 
tion alu)ut  the  names,  condition,  or  character  of  the  alleged  purchaser, 
the  terms  of  his  contract  or  the  other  circumstances  of  the  alleged  sale, 
this  (iovernment  is  not  prepared  to  pronounce  its  ac<piiescence  in  the 
disposition  of  the  subject  which  has  been  made  by  the  French  govern 
ment. 

We  are  to  be  understood,  therefore,  as   maintaining  in  regard   to 

.France  all  the  juotests  we  have  heretofore  nnide  concerning  those 

[.')05J    ves.sels,  and  reserving  all  *the  rights  and  remedies  in  respect  to 

the  vessels  themselves  which  belong  to  the  United  States  under 

the  law  of  nations. 

At  the  same  time  we  willingly  believe  that  the  Frencli  government 
has  taken  proper  care  to  guard  against  the  vessels  being  used  for  mak- 
ing war  upon  the  United  States. 
I  am,  sir,  &e., 

WILLIAM  n.  SEWAKD. 

WiLLtAV  E.  Dayton,  Esq. 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    THE   I'NITED    .STATES. 


39 


Mr.  Jkitjton,  United  States  mhmter,  to  Mr.Semoul,  Secretary  of  State. 

[Extract.] 

Paims,  Sqxtcmbcr  30,  1804. 

SiK:  I  siiw  ^r.  Dronyii  dv  Lhiiys  on  yestonhiy.  lla  received  me  in  a 
I  very  cordial  manner,  lint  said,  smilingly,  that  I  wrote  him  a  sharp  <lis- 
!  patch;  iti  allnsion  to  that  1  had  sent  him  the  day  before,  inclosed  to  yon 
;  in  No.  o4l*. 

I  said  no,  bnt  I  had  answered  tem])erately  a  sharp  dispatch  he  had 
.  sent  to  me  liom  the  minister  of  marine  ;  and  I  added  that  that  dispatch 
had  surprised  me  very  much,  as  there  was  certainly  nothin*;-  in  my  let- 
ter, to  which  this  dispatch  from  the  minister  of  marine  i)nrports  to  be 
I  an  answer,  to  justify  it.     M.  Drouyn  de  Lhnys  then  said  thiy  certainly 
intende«l   to   watch   those  vessels  at  Bordeaux  and  Nantes  as 
I  [30GJ    *cl()sely  as  possible  ;  and  he  thought  that  this  letter  from  the  min- 
j  ister  of  marine,  stating  that  these  vessels  fshonid  md  Itv  dcllrercd 

\to  the  voiijeilerate-s,  put  the  matter  in  the  best  possible  shapv.'  for  me. 
I     i  tohl  him  i  thought  so  too,  and  was  satislied,  and  had  so  informed 
[the  commanders  of  the  Niagara  and  Hacramento.         #         *         # 
I  am,  sir,  &c., 

WM.  L.  DxW'TON. 
Hon.  William  II.  Sewakd, 

Secretary  of  State. 


[307]  *\o.  3.— CASE  OF  THE  l^VPrAHANNOCK. 

f3£r.  Dayton,  United  States  minister,  to  ^[.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys,  minister  of 

foreign  ap^'airs. 

Paris,  December  4,  ISO.'}. 

l\r,  LE  ^MiNiSTitE :  A  ship  called  by  her  captain  the  liappahannocii, 
and  purchased  for  the  confederates  of  the  South,  has  nnule  her  escape 
'•from  the  British  port  of  8heerness  without  papers,  and  run  into  tlie 
port  of  Calais.  She  claims,  1  am  informed,  that  she  is  driven  in  to  re- 
pair her  marhijiery,  rigging,  &c. 

The  facts  as  communicated  to  me  are  certain: 

1.  That  she  has  been  bought  ami  fitted  up  by  the  confederates,  to 
cruise  against  and  destroy  our  commerce. 

2.  That,  anticipating  or  fearing  «letention,  she  escaped  in  an  uiilin- 
ished  condition  from  the  port  of  Slieerness,  England,  and  has  come  over 
to  Calais  to  complete  her  equipment,  »S:c. 

3.  That  a  nuinber  of  young  Americans  (some  twelve  or  fourteen,  1 
think)  have  been  awaiting  at  Calais  the  arrival  of  this  vessel  to  go 
aboard  other  as  ollicers  oicrew,  and  that  ni)on  a  signal  from  the  vessel 
they  made  an  attempt  by  a  ruse  to  accompli«ih  their  purpose.  This 
shows   that  the  vessel  did   not  come   in  as   pretended,   "  en  relache 

force." 

[308]        *4.  Our  consular  agent  writes  me  that  it  is  <piitt^  evident  the 

vessel  left  the  English  port  suddenly  and  unexpectedly,  with  th«' 

mechanics  employed  on  heryet  onboard;  that  considerable  reparations 

and  changes  are  yet  to  be  made  upon  her;  that  her  rigging  is  incom- 

il)lete,  and  the  ropes  and  pulleys  are  yet  scattered  over  the  decks.     He 

(inlbrmed    mo   also  that  it  is  understood  the  captain    had  said   that 

he  had  applied,  or  would  apply,  to  the  minister  of  marine  for  permission 

[to  take  out  and  entirely  rei>air  her  boilers. 


40' 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON — PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 


5.  I  inclose  likewise  copii's  of  two  adidavits  sent  to  me  from  tlifi 
United  States  legation  at  London,  jnaving  that  the  vessel  left  the  Kn;^- 
lish  port  to  go  to  Calais;  that  she  was  then  incomplete  ;  that. she  waits 
at  the  port  of  Calais  for  her  crew,  and  that  she  is,  as  her  captain  says, 
a  confederate  i)rivateer. 

It  is  (piite  evident  that  this  vessel  occnpies  a  position  which  ditt'crs 
from  either  the  Florida  («•  the  Georgia.  She  has  left  her  port  on  tin; 
other  side  of  the  channel,  voluntarily,  without  papers,  ami  run  directly 
across  to  a  neighboring  port,  within  which  she  hopes  to  be  i)rotecte(l 
until  her  equi|)ment  is  completed,  and  her  officers  ami  crew  ready. 

On  this  statement  of  facts  no  argument  is  necessary  to  show  that 
permission  from  the  French  authorities  to  carry  out  her  purpose  would 
be  a  violation  of  neutrality. 

•May  I  beg  the  attention  of  your  excellency,  therefore,  imme- 
diately to  this  (piestion. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  &c., 

W^r.  L.  DAYTON. 
His  Excellency  Mr.  Drouyn  de  Liiuys, 

Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Paris. 


[300] 


Mr.  Dayton,  United  States  minister,  to  Mr.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State. 

Paris,  December  25,  18B3. 

Sir  :  ^ly  dispatch  No.  '3S7  incloses  to  you  a  copy  of  a  note  recently 
sent  to  Mr.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys,  in  reference  to  the  rebel  vessel  called  the 
llappaluinnock,  lying  at  Calais.     I  now  beg  to  inclose  to  you  a  transit 
tion  of  ^Ir.  ]>rouyn  (le  Lhuys's  reply.    I  should  achl  that  in  the  course 
of  conversation  had  with  him  yesterday  headmitt«'d  that  this  vessel  was. 
in  his  judgment,  an  exceptional  case,  inasmuch  as  she  was  not  driteii 
in  by  stress  of  weather  or  necessity,  but  came  voluntarily,  to  complete 
her  efpiipment;  and  that,  in  this  respect,  her  case  was  unlike  the  case 
of  eitiier  the  Florida  or  Georgia.     lie  said,  further,  that  he  understood 
the  minister  of  marine  agreed  with  him  in  this  view,  but  nothing  has  | 
yet  been  done.     I  am  daily  expecting  some  orders  from  the  minister  ot 
marine  in  reference  to  this  vessel. 
I  am,  sir,  &c., 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 

lion.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


[310]    *M.  Jh'ouyn  de  Lhuys,  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  to  Mr.  Dayton. 

United  States  minister. 


[Trauslatioii. — Extract.] 

Taris,  December  23,  1SG3. 

Sir  :  I  have  received  the  letters  which  you  have  done  me  the  honor 
to  address  me,  dated  the  4th,  J2th,  and  lOth  of  this  month,  to  commu- 
nicate to  me  the  infonnation  wliich  had  been  transmitted  to  you  in  re 
gard  to  the  vessel  Happahannock. 

1  have  taken  care  to  give  notice  of  them  to  the  minister  of  marine, 


G 

from  the 
;  the  Eiij-- 
sho  waits 
itaiii  sjiys, 

ich  (litters 
wt  on  the 
n  (liiectl.v 
protected 
iady. 

show  that 
ose  would 

)re,  inline- 


VYTON. 


COUNTER   CASE    OF   THE    UNITED   STATES. 


41 


i  of  state. 

25,  18C3. 

te  recently 

I  called  the 

I  a  transhv 

the  course 

vessel  was, 

not  (Iriten 

o  complete 

e  the  case 

nderstood 

lothing:  has 

minister  ol 


AYTON. 


Iwhose  information  was  still  incomplete,  and  I  await  the  result  of  the  in- 
piii  y  into  which  our  authorities  are  obliged  to  proceed,  in  order  to  judge 
)f  the  ditterence  which  you  point  out  between  the  position  of  the  vessel 
Innd  that  of  the  Florida  and  of  the  Georgia. 

1  think,  indeed,  with  you,  that  it  is  desirable  to  avoid  giving  an  equit- 
ible  base  for  future  reclamations.    It  is  with  this  feeling  that  the  gov- 
ernment of  tlie  Emperor  has  always  been  studious  to  act,  and  it  will 
|jiot  dei)art  therefrom  in  this  circumstance. 

A(;cept,  sir,  the  assurances  of  the  high  consideration  with  which  I 
lave  the  honor  to  be,  «S:c.,  , 

DROUYX  DE  L'HUYS. 
:\Ir.  Dayton,  • 

Minister,  «0c.,  cOc. 


|311] 


fr.  Dayton. 


Mr.  Drouyn  (1e  Lhuys,  minister  o/ foreign  affairs,  to  Mr.  Dayton,  United 

States  minister. 

[Translation.] 

♦Paris,  January  13,  18(54. 
Sir:  I  have  just  received  the  answer  of  the  minister  of  marino 
;o  the  communications  which  I  had  addressed  him,  as  I  have  had  the 
onor  to  inform  you  by  my  letter  of  the  23d  of  last  month,  in  regard  to 
ihe  stay  at  Calais  of  the  vessel  the  Rappahannock.     It  appears  from  it 
ihat  this  matter  has  already  attracted  the  attention  of  M.  le  Cte.  de  Chas- 
loup  Laubat,  and  that  he  had  hastened  to  give  the  necessary  orders 
Jfhat  the  captain  of  the  vessel  referred  to  might  be  able  solely  to  put.it 
n  a  state  of  navigability,  and  revictual  with  provisions,  and  coal.     It 
t'esults  also  from  an  inquiry  which  was  entered  into  on   the  spot,  that 
^alais  wa«  not  at  all  the  port  of  destination  of  the  llappahannock  when 
he  left  the  shores  of  England;  that  unforeseen  acciilents  only  led  her 
o  take  refuge  in  our  waters,  and  that  we  could  not  un;ier  the  circum- 
aiicos  refuse  her  an  asylum  any  more  than  to  aiiy  other  vessel  placed 
n  the  same  situation.    Tliis  vessel  has  been,  however,  and  continues  to 
e,  the  object  of  special  surveillance,  and  you  yourself  will  be  satisfied 
ritli  the  care  with  which  watch  is  kept  that  no  suspicious  object  be  iu- 
roduced  on  board,  by  reading  the  report  on  this  subject  addressed  to 
ho  department  of  the  marine  by  the  competent  local  authority,  and  here- 
ith  annexed  in  copy.   I«will  add  that  M.  le  Cte.  de  Chasseloup  Laubat 
n  limiting  the  facilities  accorded  to  the  Rappahannock  to  wliat  is  de- 
nanded  for  the  equipment  and  seawortliiness  of  an  ordinary  vessel  of 
ominerce,  has  besides  given  directions  not  to  authorize  her  to  prolong 
er  stay  at  (idais,  so  soon  as  she  shall  be  in  a  state  to  go  to  sea. 
Receive  the  assurances  of  the  high  consideration,  &c. 

DROUYN  DE  LUUYS. 
Mr.  Dayton, 

Minister  of  the  United  States  at  Paris. 


■,i 


■'(  ii 


23,  18G3. 

the  honor 

to  column- 

)  you  in  re- 

of  marine, 


[312]    *Mr.  Dayton,  United  States  minister,  to  M.  Droityn  de  Lhuys,  min- 
ister of  foreign  a  fairs. 

Paris,  February  2,  18G4. 
^lONSiEURLE  MiNiSTRE :  I  luive  just  received  information  from  oiircon- 
lular  agent  at  Calais  that  the  confederate  war- vessel  Rappahannock 


42 


TKKATV    or    WASHIXOTOX PArKKS    ACCOMPAXVIXO 


lias  coniplft*-!!  Iicr  icpaii's  and  (>i|iii|iiii(>iit,  an«l  is  about  to  loavc  that 
jMH-t;  and  lir  fiiitiicr  savs  tJiat  it  a]>|»'ar.s  hy  a  sliippiiiy  f^a/.cttc  that  a 
ship  has  <;(iiii>  out  of  the  Thames  hiih'ii  with  iniiiiitioiis  of  ail  Iciiids  for 
thi'  K'ap|iahaiiiioci<. 

If  tiiis  Ik>  tnu'  (and  it  is  pro1>al)lc)  its  oW'i'vX  upon  the  piililic  iiiiiid  of: 
my  comitry.  and  tln'  vi«'\v  likely  to  he  taken  of  it  by  my  (lOveiiinuMit 
must  lie  oi»\  ions. 

The  I{app.iIiaiino(,'k  is  a  ec.n federate  (Miiiser,  and  not  a  vessel  of  coin 
iiierce.     To  etpiip  her  in  one  uentral  port  )  •  such,  when  it  is  well  under- 
stood she  is  to  he  imme<liately  sup[)lied  trom  another  neutral  jtort  with 
arms  to  prey  upon  our  eommerce,  is,  I   submit,  to  aid  directly  in  the 
priiu'i|)al  wron;;. 

The  ports  of  I-]n;;land  and  l-'ranee  alternating  in  the<!haractor  of  their 
aid,  nii;;:lit  in  this  way  be  made  the  easy  moans,  or  base,  of  military 
opj'rations  a;nainst  us. 

It  is  perfectly  certain  that  the  United  States  (lovornmont  will  never  ac- 
quiese  in  the  justice  or  lej,^dity  of  such  proceedinjfs.     And  I  now,  with 
j.':reat  respe«'t,  jjive  formal  notice  that  re(,'lamation  will  be  made  in 
f^l.j]    due  tinu'  *for  all  daniaj;es  whi(th  shall  be  done  by  the  iJappahan 
nock  to  our  commerce,  in  case  she  be  permitted  under  the  circum- 
stances to  <;o  to  sea. 

Accejtt.  sir,  the  assurance  of  high  consideration  with  which  1  have 
the  honor  to  be  vour  excellencv's  very  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  L.  DAYTON. 

His  Excellency  M.  Duouyx  de  Ltiitys, 

Minister  o/Foreiyn  Afairtijl'iirit!. 


Iiules  ill  ngard  to  hcUi(jercnt  vessels  in  French  jiorts. 

LTninslation.] 
MIXLSTUV  or  AIARIXE  AND  OF  THE  COLOXIES. 

The  minister  of  marine  and  of  the  colonies  to  the  maritime  prefects: 
jjeneral  (tllicers.  suj)eriors,  and  others  comnninding  at  sea;  command- 
ant of  marine  in  Al;^eria ;  jiovernors  of  colonies;  commissaries  gen- 
eral of  marine  ;  chiefs  of  the  marine  service,  in  secondary  ports;  and 
adndnistrators  of  the  maritime  inscription. 


II IIST  DIRECTIOX — SECOXD  UUREAl'. — MOVEMENTS. 

Knles  to  be  observed  in  regard  to  vessels  of  bcUigermits. 

Paris,  February  o,  18G4. 

CiEXTLEMEX:  Bv  its  declarations  of  the  10th  of  June,  1801,  inserted 
in  the  Moniteur,  the  Eaiperor's  jjfovernment  has  made  known  thi' 
[314]  i)rinciples  wiii(;h  serve  sis  a  basis  to* the  neutrality  it  intended  to 
observe  in  the  war  which  insanyuines  North  America. 

Since  then,  these  principles  have  received  their  a{>i)Iicatiou  as  well 
in  our  colonies  as  in  tin*  ports  of  tlie  mother  country. 

IJut  tin'  continuation  of  the  war  haviufj  led  the  belligerents  to  carry 
the  theater  of  maritime  hostilities  into  the  neighboring  waters  of  tlu' 
neutral  states  of  Europe  and  brought  them  to  seek  in  our  ports  tin' 
means  of  repairs  or  of  i»rovisioning,  the  Emperor's  goverumeut  has 


COUNTKR   CASE    OF    TIIK    UNITED    STATES. 


43 


ItlcciiKMl  it  iiscl'iil  to  ii'iuiiid  yon  iij^iiiii  of  tlu'  rules  to  ho  ohscrvcd  in 
lonlci'  to  niaintiiin  its  ncntnility,  conibnniibl.v  to  |inl>li(;  law  iintl  to  tii«> 
Itniditions  of  tlic  l''rciu;li  niiirinr,  and  to  dctcnninc  consiMiniMiil.v  on  the 
Itrcatincnt  which  is  to  he  ai)|»lied,  witliont,  distinction  of  lla;;,to  tlic  vcs- 
Iscis  of  tlu'  hclli<;«'ivnts. 

Voii  will  therefore  have  toattcnd  to  the  strict  execntioii  olthe  follow- 
liii.i;  re:,'nlations : 

1st.  No  ves.sel  of  war  or  belli^cri'iit  privateer  will  be  allowed  to  stay 

More  than  twenty-four  honrs  in  a  poit  of  the  empire  of  the  l-'icnch  eol- 

loiiies,  or  in  the  adjacent  waters,  exci'pt  in  the  case  of  a  forced   ]>nttin^' 

jiii  on  account  of  bad  weather,  of  injuries,  or  of  e.\hsiustion  of  provisions, 

liicccssaiy  to  the  safety  of  the  voya^'e. 

I'd.  In  no  case  can  ii  bellijicrent  make  use  of  ji  French  port  foi-  a  pur- 
])ose  of  war,  or  for  there  supplyinji'  himself  with  arms  or  niuni- 
[;»1.")|    tions  of  war,  or  for  there  *execntin>i',  unih'r  pretext  of  repairs, 
woiks  whose  object  is  to  increase  his  military  jjower. 

;!d.  Tliei'e  can  only  be  furnished  to  a  vessel  of  wai'  or  l»elli;::erent.  i)ri- 
Ivateer  the  provisions,  stores,  and  nu'ans  of  repair  necessary  lor  the  siib- 
|sistcnce  of  her  crew  and  for  the  safety  of  iu'r  voya;;e. 

Itli.  Nt)  vessel  of  war  or  belli,y('rent  privateer  allowed  to  take  in  pro- 
[visioMs  or  to  make  repairs  in  a  French  port  can  i)rolon<;-  her  stay  tln-re 
Iheyond  twenty  t\:iir  hours  alter  hei*  supplies  shall  have  been  sliip[)eil 
|tind  her  repairs.  (Inished,  except  in  the  case  hereinafter  provided  for. 

."»ih.  When  v<'sselsof  war,  jnivateers,  or  nierchant-\essels  of  the  two 
|b('lli<i'erent  j)arties  are  found  t«)jiether  in  a  French  port,  there  shall  be 
lini  interval  of  not  less  than  twenty-four  hours  between  the  depaiture  of 
laiiy  vessel  (of  one  of  the  belli^'erents,  ami  the  subsecpient  ilepartnre)  of 
jniiy  vessel  of  wai-  or  jjjivateer  of  the  other  bellij;erent. 

This  delay  shall  be  extended,  in  ea.se  of  need,  by  order  of  the  mari- 
|tiiii<'  authority,  as  lon^'  as  nniy  be  ne(;essary. 

You  will  take  care  to  make  known  the  foreft'oin<i'  refiulations  to  every 
icssel  of  either  of  the  bellif^'erents  which  may  eonu'  inro  the  pints,  road- 
steads, or  Winters  subject  to  your  connnand. 

Accept,  ycntlemen,  the  assurance  of  my  very  distin^^uished  considera- 


.A   .y/ 


[ion. 


COUNT  r.  1)1-:  CIIASSKLOIJF  LAUIJAT, 

^linister  Strretttry  of  State,  of  Mfd'iiu.,  anrl  of  Colonies. 


I.  , 


'I., 


'.if 


( 


m 


Inserted  in  theoMieial  bulletin,  18(J4. 


ii  lH 


m 


.")1()J    *Jfr.  Dayton,  United  States  minister,  to  Mr.  Seward,  Secretary  of 

State. 

[Extract.] 

Pauis,  February  10,  1804. 
Siii:  I  yesterday  communicated  to  Mr.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  the  content.s 
^1  your  <lispatch  No.  4(JS,  and  I  did  this  the  nion^  readily  as,  in  its  imviu 
I'iitures.  it  was  ji  reiteration  from  you  of  views  that  I  had  individually 
llicady  expressed  to  him.  I  read  to  him  that  i)art  of  your  dispatch  in 
iliicli  yon  state  that  the  decision  of  the  Freuidi  {>overnmenr.  in  respect 
P  tlie  Happahannock,  C(>-operatinjj  with  other  causes,  will  be  si  trial  to 
|k'  friendship  of  our  country  toward  France,  for  which,  after  the  pro- 
[sts  we  have  nnule,  not  our  (iovi'rnmenr,  but  "  the  Em[)eror,  will  be  re- 
i)oiislble."    He  said,  in  reply,  that  we  must  deal  with  things  us  they 


^mi 


-iirM 


t 


fi 


44 


TREATY   OF   WASIIIXOTON* PAPERS    ACCOMPANYIXO 


were.    Tliat  France  liavin^  acknowlfil^rftl  tin*  South  as  lu'llijfi'rcnts,  Ik 
cniilil  do  iiotliiii^  less  tliaii  treat  them  as  siieh.     That,  keepiii;j:  that  po 
Htioii  ill  view,  tlie  Fhirida  and  CJeor;:ia  had  Immmi  nveived  in  their  ports 
That  the  Fh)ri<hi  had  heen  repaired,  thoii<;h  little  had  Ween  done  to  tlit- 
<ieor;;ia,  and  nothing  had  heen  done  to  either  of  thes«*  vessels  e\'(('|it| 
what  was  essential  to  their  ^^  wtr'ninhilHy."     Tliat  their  tijrhtinfj  powcisj 
had  not  heen  improved,  nor  had  a  Fivneh  S4*aman  heen  ptMinitted  tnl 
eniliark  (»n  either  of  them.     That  in  res|KHrl  to  tlies**  vess«'ls,  therefore,  lii[ 
tbou;;ht  they  had  kept  within  the  limits  ofelear  rules  of  international  law, 

That  in  respect  to  the  Uai>paliannoek.  sin*  had  not  yet  oeen  perl 
[;JI7J    niitted  to  leave  port,  nor  would  she  Ik?  |K*ruiitle«l  to  leave  'until  liiil 

jrovernment,hy  a  most  ri;»orous;indcan-ful  examination,  had  satis  [ 
lied  itsi'lf  that  no  rule  of  war  had  Ih'cu  viulateil.  iShe  ha<i  been  jiermitti'dl 
to  repair  as  a  vessel  of  <'ommerce  only,  and  if  we  anticipated  that  she  wnsl 
t(»  Ik*  converted  into  a  ship  of  war  by  *runs  frrnci  Kn;<:land,  it  was  against! 
England,  an<I  not  France,  we  shoidd  ciunplain  :  hut  if  the  fact  turnodj 
out  as  I  insisted,  that  she  was  no  vessel  of  co!umeix*e,  but  ■  »hip  of  war. 
then  he  admitt<'<l  that  if  she  came  into  a  French  port,  n  »t  by  stress  ofl 
\veather,  but  voluntarily  to  tinish  her  equipment,  an<l  she  were  ihtI 
niitted  to  leave,  it  would  be  a  breach  of  the  proclamation  of  neutralitvf 
]»ublished  by  the  Emperor:  but  the  question  of  fact,  he  said,  was  yet  iiil 
the  course  of  investigation.  I  rein-ated  to  him  the  evidence  on  tliiJ 
questiim,  (a  summary  of  whi(;h  will  Im*  found,  by  the  way,  in  the  iirstj 
dispatch  1  sent  to  him  on  this  subject  Deceralx-r  \  last.)  He  seemed  tol 
consider,  however,  that  I  presented  the  subject  in  s«»me  new  lights,  audi 
siiid  he  would  again  refer  the  matter  to  the  ininister  of  marine.  Tlitl 
line  of  distinction  between  what  they  might  pro|K'rly  do,  ajid  what  tlunl 
might  not,  was,  he  said,  in  his  mind  quite  clear.  If  a  war-vessel  caiiul 
into  their  ports  from  stress  of  weather  they  were  bound  to  let  her  repairj 
damages,  adding  nothing,  except  such  repairs,  to  her  tighting  (pialiticsJ 
but  if  such  a  vessel  came  into  port  in  an  unfinished  condition  theycoiiliir 
not  riglitlully  permit  her  to  tinish  her  ef]ui[mient,  f»u-  that  wouhl  be  toi 
shape  a  hanah'ss  log  or  mass  of  timU'r  into  a  lighting  sliip.  I  told  liiiil 
that  lie  anil  1  did  not  then  differ  in  this  «;:ise  so  mudi  al»'»ut  the  law  iiJ 
about  the  fact,  and  1  yet  hoped  that  on  the  further  investigation,  whicli| 
he  j»roMiised,  this  vessel  might  be  stopiM'd. 

1  am,  sir,  vour  obedient  servant, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON, 
lion.  Wm.  II.  Skward, 

ISccretnry  of  tit  ate. 


[318] 


*M.  GosscUn  an  Livutenant  CampML 


Calais,  le  Ifh-rkr  1804. 

^loNSiEi'R  :  Je  viens  de  recevoir  de  son  excellence  le  ministre  del;i| 
marine  et  des  colonies  une  tleiM*"che  ctmtenaiit  des  onlres  lu-ecis  fornii'l 
en  ce  <pii  concerne  votre  batiment;  et  la  notiticationque  je  ilois  vous  en 
laire  mVst,  veuillez  n'en  pas  douter,  tri*s  i»enible  ;  i>ourtant,  lacommniii| 
cation  <pie  j'ai  eu  Thonneur  de  vous  faire  le  11  du  mois  dernier,  et  a 
suite  de  la«|uelle  vous  m'avez  declare  i>ouvoir  etre  en  etat  completdJ 
|»ren<lre  la  mer  a  environ  une  semaine  de  cettedate,  t<»ut  en  voustaisaiij 
jiressentir  la  j>ossibilite  des  mesures  surveuues  aujourd'  hui,  a  du  voii| 
juvparer  a  y  faire  face. 


COUNTER   CASK    OF   THE    UNITED    STATES. 


45 


.Iiii  tloiic  \v  n»y;r('t,  monslonv,  <li>  voii.s  iiiloniior  <ino  le  ffoiiveriUMiuMit 
llcsii  .Miiji'st*'  riCinpeivur  a  «h''r,itl('  qiioj'intiiiiL'rai  "  ronhvuii  liappalisin- 
li(.(k  (loniiittiT  If  port  tie  Calais  a  la  niaiviMpii  Kiiivra  la  ivceptioii  do 
ti'tte  U'ttiv,"et  «|iu*,  laiiti'  par  vons  «robU!iiipm'ra  cettciiiijoiiclioii,  il  lie 
voiisscrair  plus  pi'iiiiis  (UHpiittcrct;  port  qifil  la  liii  des  hustiliti'.s 
IiJl!>]    eiitiv  h'n  ICtats-Uni.s  «'t  *lt'H  <;ontV'(l«''n''S. 

Le  Ion;;  sejour  «le  v«)tie  batiiiient  a  Calais,  et  Hintoiit  le  teiiii>N 
Seoalt'  (lepiiis  Tavis  piveite,  me  font  espfher,  inoiisieiii',  qn'il  vous  sera 
jossible  (I'iei  iiiinuit  de  hater  vosderiiier.s  prepaiafifs,  de  telle  sorte  (pie 
111  decision  de  laqiielleje  viens  d'avoir  riioiineiii"  de  vous  laire  part  re- 
solve son  execution. 

.rajouteiai,  monsieur,  mal;,Me  la  nature  epiiu'use  de  me.s  relations  ofil- 
BR'lles  avec  vous,  je  dt'sire  vivenuMit  que  le  href  dt'lai  qui  vous  est  ue- 
Bonlesoitpouitantsidlisant.  Ai-je  besoin  d'insister,  monsieur,  an  moment 
K'  votre  d«''pai't  sur  ee  «pie  les  rap[H)rt8  et  les  re[)onses  quej'ai  eu  a 
idresser  a  IVyanl  de  votre  batiment  out  ete  constamment  eimformes  a 
la  verit*',  telle  (pie  mes  inve.sti;iati<uis  personnelles  et  imi)aitiales  me 
I'oiit  fait  troiiver,  et  que  mes  exi>lieatioiis  out  iJte  tunjuurs  loyales,  .siii- 
K'lt's  et  completes  ? 

.le  vous  |)iie  de  vouloii*  bien,  en  raison  de  sou  importanee,  m'aecusei' 
^(^'ceptioii  de  la  pivsente. 

Veiiilh  /  lecevoir,  monsieur,  rexpr(issioii  de   ma  consideration  tres- 
listiiijjue. 

Le  commissaire  de  rinscription  maritime: 

COSSELIN. 

A  Monsieur  Camimjell, 
'    Lieuteiunit  (Jommamlant  Ic  Vapeitr  Jiappahannocl: 


|r>l,'()]  *M.  (Josscliu  au  Lieutenant  CnmpheU. 

Calais,  h  10  fen- ler  1804. 

JfoNsiKL  i{ :  J'ai  riionneur  de  vous  accuser  rt^'ceptioii  de  la  lettre  que 
oils  iifavez  adress('e  bier. 

J'ai  ('^alement  riionneur  de  vous  informer  que,  par  suite  a  la  lettre 
ue  voiis  m'avez  adress(}e,  dans  laquelle  vous  me  laisiez  connaitre  (jue 
oiis  serioz  pirt  u  partir  aussit('»t  rarriv(^'e  de  votre  charbon.  et  quej'ai 
raiismise  a  son  excellence,  le  gouvernement  de  sa  Majeste  I'Eiiqiereur 
iciit  de  me  prescrire  de  vous  maiutenir  dans  le  bassin  jus(]u'a  iiouvel 
idle,  et  <pie  vous  lie  ponvez  sortir  du  port  que  lorsipie  j'aurai  re(;u  de 
mivelles  iiistru»*tions  a  ce  sujft.  Les  meuies  instructions  out  eti'  don- 
ees a  M.  le  commandant  du  Galil(3e. 

Ajjieez,  monsieur,  I'assurance  de  ma  considilratiou  distiuguee. 

Le  eommissafre  de  rinscription  : 

GOSSELIX. 

Monsieur  Campbell, 

First  Lieutenant,  Commandant  le  Ea2)pahannocl:  * 


■rH- 


1'' 


II 


illii 


1 


''I 
M 

m 
m 

d 


i  %t 


p21J  *Mr.  Gosselin  to  Lieutenant  Campbell  j 

[Trauslatiou,] 
I 

Calais,  February  4,  1864. 
Siii:  I  liave  just  received  a  dispatch  from  his  excellency  the  minister 
'marine  and  the  (M)louies,  containing  summary  and  formal  orders  rela- 


46 


TRKATV    OF    WASIIINdToX I'ArKRS    ACrOMI'ANVINO 


tivt*  to  yonr  vessel,  iiiid  tlu' notification  I  atn  ohlijicl  to  make  yoiiii' 
this  i<'S]i('ct,  do  not  douht,  is  vci-y  i»aiii1'ul  to  me;  ncvortliclcss,  the  coiii 
munication  wliicli  I  liatl  the  honor  to  send  you  on  tlie  Utli  of  last  nionili,! 
when*  1  ju'esenti'U  to  yon  the  i»os.sibility  of  the  very  measures  whieii  :iie| 
now  taken,  and  in  ('onsecnuMiee  of  which  you  <leclai'ed  to  nie  that  ymi 
would  lie  inc(»ndition  to  "^o  to  sea  in  fthout  a  week  lioni  that  date,  iniisj 
liave  |U-ej>arefl  you  to  encounter  them. 

I  n-.i;ret,  sir.  to  infciin  you  that   the  <i(>vernment  of   His  Majesty  tlni 
Knijicrc'  has  (h'cid«'d  that  I  sindl  order  tlie  "  iiappahaunock  to  lea\(^  flu' 
jtotl  of  Calais  at  tlie  next  hiyli  tide  after  the  receipt  of  this  lett-«M';*'  and 
ifyoi.  fail  to  (M)mply  with  this  coni?nand  you  will  not  Iw  permitted  to| 
leave  tliis  port  until  I  h(^  eu«l  of  hostilities  between  the.  United  instates  ami 
the  eonti derates. 

The  U}U'^  stay  of  your  vessel  at  Calais,  ami  above  all  the  time  whicli 

has  elapseil  since  the  abo-.''  mentioned  noticte,  makes  me  hope,  sir, 

[.3*_'l.']    that  from  now  until  *midni.iiht  it  will   be  i)ossible  for  you  so  t" 

hasten  .\onrlast  preparations  that  tlu-  decision  with  which  I  havi 

just  had  the  honor  to  make  you  acf;uainted  shall  be  executed. 

I  have  to  add,  sir.  that  in  spit<'  of  my  delicate  olUcial  relations  witljj 
you,  1   desire  i'xtrenu'ly  that  the  brief  delay  accorded  to  you  slioidd  IhI 
sullicient.     Is  it  necessary  for  me  Jto  repeat,  sir,  at  the  moim'Ut  of  yomj 
departure,  tiiat  the  rei>orts  and  answt'rs  wiiich  I  have  had  to  make  rel.ij 
tive  to  your  vessel  have  always  been  truthfully  in  accordance  with  iiiv 
personal  and  impartial  investij>ations,  ami  that  my  explanati(Mis  havi 
always  been  loyal,  sin(;ere,  and  (iomplete  ?     I  have  to  re(|uest  you  to  ac 
knowled.:,;e  the  receipt  (tf  this  letter,  on  account  of  its  importance. 

Accept,  sir,  the  expression  of  my  very  distinguished  consideratioh. 

Le  commis,saire  de  rinscri]»tiv,u  ujaritime, 

(lOSSELlN. 

M.  Camimjell, 

Lii'utcniint,  ContnKOidlnfj  the  /Stcuina'  Rupj/ahaiinoek. 


Mr.  Gossclin  to  Lieutenant  Cdmphcll. 
f  Translation.] 


Calais,  Fefirnarji  10,  1801. 
SlU:  I  have  the  honor  to  neknowlodHC  the  receijit  of  your  letter 
ye.sterday. 
[323J        I  have  also  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  in  consequence  *'of  Itij 
letter atldressed  byyou  to  me,  in  whichyon.  tell  nu'  that  youfshall  Ix 
re^ady  to  dt'part  upon  the  arrival  of  your  coal,  a\ul  which  !    ter  I  trati^j 
iiiiitted  to  his  excellency,  the  };overnme,i»t  of  llks  Majesty  the  EuipcnrB 
has  just  ordered  me  to  detain  you  within  the  basin  until  further  ordcisl 
and  that  you  can  only  ieave  this  port  when  I  shall  receive  new  orders  t:| 
that  etl'ect.    The  Hunic  orders  have  been  given  to  the  comtnunder  of  tlit^ 
G.ililee. 

AccM'pt,  sir,  the  assurance  of  my  distinguished  consideration. 
Le  couii'iissaire  de  riuscription, 

G0S8ELIN, 
M.  Campbell, 

First  Lieutenant,  Commanding  the  Rappahannock. 


COUNTER   CASE    OF  THE    UNITED    STATES. 


47 


.1//-.  D.iijtoii,  United  StiitcH  ui'niisi<'r,tn  Mr.  >Sen'ar<l,  S.rrelKry  »/  Slide. 

[Extract.] 

PAifis,  M"yh  L'.~>.  l.S(i4. 

^.|,  .#  *  #  *  *  *  *  •  * 

My  notice  t<»  tlif  French  fjovormiUMit  tliat  tlioy  would  be  held  respon- 
[siltlc  tor  iill  <lauiji;4«'s  (lone  'o;^  the  I'iipicihiinnock,  in  c;isf  slu'  s'iould  he 
hxTiiiitted  to  .uo  to  sea,  was  in  anticipation  of  that  event,  and  in  the 
hidpi'  that  the  (piestion,  l)ein,si"  thns  ]»laiidy  ])resented  in  a<lvance.  they 
Iniiulit  jnevent  the  wronii'  by  ibrbiddini'-  herdeijartnic.  It  has,  ]»erhaps, 
some  ellccf,  for  she  is  yet  slint  up  in  her  bj.sin,  with  strict  orders  jiot  to 
IMiiiiit  her  to  depart  without  tirst  obtaininj^  the  direct  authority  of  this 
•iOWMiinient. 
1]  'llu'  ollicers  of  the  shi|>,  ]Mr.  Drouyn  de  Lhiiys  informs  *nw, 
"  <.iiiaible"  viry  nuicli  at  their  enforced  detention,  but  he  ]..\:  in- 
Ifuniied  ti  «'in  that  France  will  not  permit  her  ports  to  be  used  for  the 
j('i|iii|iinent  of  vessels  of  war  for  the  confederates. 

1  liMve  just  r<M;eived  notice  from  our  consular  aj>'ent  at  Calais  that 
jCiiptain  {'anii>bell,  as  well  as  the  first  lieutenant  of  the  Happahannock, 
jluivc  left  here  juid  ,!i(»ne  back  to  Fnjjland,  with  a  view,  as  tln*y  s:iid,  ti) 
[liiiv  and  e(pii|)  another  ship  there;  and  tluh  a  man  named  Fonteroy 
liis  l>iij;"<ia,u('  is  marked  ''Colonel  Fonteroy")  has  taken  comnnindof  the 
riliippahannock. 

Our  considar  apent  thiidvs  this  is  jireparatory  to  the  vessel's  leaving; 

Iniit  it  is  quite  certain  that  she  has  had  iu>  [)ermit  to  lea\e,  and  had,  a 

j(l;iy  or  two  since  oii  boarding',  neither  arms  noi  crew  for  any  hostile 

j]»iupose,  or  indeed  to  do  anything  nM)re  than   navigate  her  frouj  one 

)i(iit  to  a  neighboring  port.      *        *        #        #        * 

1  aui,  sir,  your  obedient  ser\'ant, 

W.  L.  DAYTOX. 
lion.  William  II.  SE^VAUI), 

JSccretctfi/  of  l^tatti,  dr.,  tfr.,  tCr. 


>  r 


Mr.  Scimrd,  S'^eretary  of  State,  to  Mr.  Dayton,  United  Statcn  minister. 

[Extract.] 

Department  of  State. 

Washinyton,  May  L'U,  1804. 
[I'.LTtj  Siii:  [  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  recei[)t  *of your  dis- 
patch of  the  -M  of  May,  No.  M'AK 
Vou  will  please  express  to  Mr.  Drouyn  de  Lhnys  a  high  satisfaction 
k>i!  the  part  of  this  (iovernment  with  the  information  he  has  given  ytui, 
Hint  tlie]iin>pahauno(;k  will  not  be  allowed  to  enter  thepiraticaLsorvicoof 
the  enemies  of  the  United  States.  •»#•*• 
J  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

Vv'ILLIAM  IJ.  SEWAllD. 
William  L.  Davton,  Esq.,  (Of. 


Mr,  Dayton,  United  States  minister,  to  Mr.  Setcard,  Secretary  of  State. 

Taims,  June  10,  IHC4. 

Sill :  Looking  over  n»y  dispatch  of  the  Sth  instant,  Xo.  484,  I  find 
fl'at  I  have  neglected  to  .>*Hy  that,  iu  the  conference  tlier<<  reported, 
»li.  Drouyn  de  Lbuys  informed  mo  that  no  change  had  been  wade  iu 


■I 


48 


TREATY   OF    WASHINGTON PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 


tbe  condition  of  tilings  connected  with  the  Kappahannock,  and  that  m 
orders  had  issued,  or  were  about  beinj;-  issued,  for  its  dis<;liatjje.  lit- 
said  that  he  liad  as  yet  received  no  answer  from  the  coniDiittee  ofjuris- 
consults,  who  had  been  consulted  by  him  ;  although,  as  tlie  senate  hiid 
now  adjourned,  and  "Sir.  Troplong,  the  president,  who  is  chairman  of 
this  committee,  wouhl  be  at  leisure,  he  might  expect  an  answer  at  no 
distant  day. 

J  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 
Hon.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State » 


[32G]    *The  min'mter  of  the  marine  and  the  colonies  to  Monsieur  the  vice- 
admiral,  maritime  prefect  at  Cherhounj. 

[Traiislatiop.J 

Cabinet  of  the  Minister, 

Paris,  June  IT),  JtS()4— noon. 
We  cannot  permit  the  Alabama  t«  enter  into  one  ol»our  basins  of  tin 
arsenal,  that  not  being  indispensable  to  place  it  in  a  state  to  go  again 
to  sea. 

This  vessel  can  addressitsclf  tocommerce  (commercial  acconunodatioiis 
for  the  urgent  repairs  it  has  ueetlof  to  enable  it  to  go  out ;  but  the  priucipU  > 
ol  neutrality,  recalled  in  my  circular  of  the  r»th  of  February,  do  not  per 
mit  us  t(»  give  to  one  of  the  belligerents  the  means  to  augment  its  forces, 
.and  in  some  sort  to  rebuild  itself ;  in  fine,  it  is  not  juoper  that  one  of  tin 
belligerents  take,  without  ceasing,  our  ports,  and  especially  our  arsenals, 
as  a  l)ase  of  their  operations,  and,  so  to  say,  as  one  of  their  own  i>roi»i'i 
ports. 

You  will  ob.serxe  to  the  cai)tain  of  the  Alabaaia  that  he  has  not  beeii| 
forced  to  enter  into  Cherbourg  by  any  accidents  of  the  sea,  and  that  lie 
could  altogether  as  well  have  toucihed  at  the  ports  of  Spain  or  Portugal. 
of  England,  of  Uelgiuju,  and  of  Holland. 

As  to  the  prisoners  niade  by  the  Alabama,  and  who  have  been  placed  I 
ashore,  they  are  free  from  the  tinu^  they  have  touched  our  soil:! 
[;>27J    but  they  ought  *not  to  be  delivered  up  to  the  Kearsarge,  whicli 
is  a  Federal  ship  of  war.    This  would  l)e  for  the  Kearsarge  an 
augmentation  of  military  force,  and  we  can  no  more  i)eraiit  this  for  oik  j 
(►f  the  belligerents  than  for  the  other. 


1  ^ 

I'l 

1" 

, 

1 

mm^ 

Mr.  Bigilow,  United  States  minister,  to  Mr.  Scivard,  Secretary  of  State. 

[Extnut.] 

Legation  of  the  U'nited  States, 

I'aris,  March  A,  i.SC."). 

Sir  :  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  disi^atches  Xos.  3!)  to  1-1 
inclusive. 

I  received  yesterday  from  Mr.  Dudley,  our  consul  at  Liverpool,  alettcil 
informing  me  that  that  iK)rtion  of  the  crew  of  the  confederate  cruiscif 


COUNTER    CASE    OF   THE    UNITE P    STATES. 


49 


Floridii  wliich  was  liluM-iittMl  at  Doston  was  j):u(l  off  at  Lhcrpool  on 
the  -Otii  of  Ft'l)niary  last,  and  to  each  was  •••i\ en  l('a\'«'  of  altsoiice  till 
tiic  lOtli  instant,  whoii  tln'v  wore  to  r»*iK)it  for  duty  o'l  hoard  the 
]{a])])aliainuK'k,  at  Calais. 

1  inune«liatoly  wrote  (inclo>;ure  No.  1)  to  Mr.  Dronyn  de  Lliiiys,  and 
at  iin  interview  whieli  I  liad  with  his  excellency  in  the  afternoon 
jiiaeed  it  in  his  hands.  His  exeelh'ncy  lead  it,  «>xpressed  dissatisfaction 
with  the  allefjed  conduct  of  tiie  vessel,  and  said  it  should  be  looked  into 

at  once. 
lii.'Sj        I  reniaiked  that  I  did  not  suppose  I  coidd  say  *anythin^  that 
would  make  the  duty  of  the  f:;ov«Mnnient  in  reference  tothisahuse 
()!'  the  hospitality  of  France  more  clear,  and  then  I  Ment  on  to  other 
business. 

In  the  course  of  my  conversation  ui>on  other  topics,  I  had  occasion 
to  refer  again  to  this  vessel,  as  you  will  see  in  dispatch  No.  4l*,  when  he 
said, "  I  shall  send  a  copy  of  your  letter  to  the  nunister  of  marine  at  once," 
intuaating  at  the  same  time  his  decide«l  disapproval  of  the  use  made  of 
the  llap»)ahannock,  and  his  «letermination  to  have  it  stopi)ed.  *  »  ♦ 
1  have  written  to  our  consular  a{;fent  at  Calais  to  keei»  me  fully  advised 
of  everything:  that  may  occur  on  board  the  Kai>pahannock.  especially 
between  this  and  the  10th  instant. 

I  am,  sir,  with  yreat  respect,  vour  very  obedient  >erva>Jt. 

doiiN  IIl(;l•:Lo^Y. 

Hon.  William  IT.  Sewaud, 

Sfcri'tari/  of  State,  dr.,  dr.,  tlr. 


-v:i;:m 


Mr. 'John  Sliilcll  tt>  Mr.  Jh'ouipi  tic  Lhuijs,  minister  of  lorchfa  affnirii. 


I'AHIS,  J»»t'l).  1801. 
.Vl\y\        *Sik:  On  the  17th  February  last  the  Confederate  States  war- 
steamer  liappahannock  having  completed  her  r«'pairs  at  the  i)ort 
ol' Calais  and  taken  on  board  a  supply  »d"  coal,  her  commander  notilied 
the  authorities  of  the  port  of  his  wish  to  proceed  to  sea,  when  he  was 
iiifornie*!  that  instructions  had  been  given  by  his  excellency  the  ministi'r 
j  of  marine  not  to  permit  the  dei)arture  of  the  vessel.     On  the  2iith  Feb- 
ruary, the  undersigned  had  the  honor  to  address  your  excellency  on  the 
>;ibj('ct  of  this  d«'tention,  atul  to  (kMuonstrate  ci>nclusively,  as  he  thought, 
iliat  no  Just  cause  «'\isted  for  the  iletention  of  the  liappahannock;  no 
answer  having  been  made  to  this  letter,  the  undersigned,  on  the  14th 
-March,  again  addressed  \<>ur  excellency,  and  reipu'stecl  to  l)e  inform»'d  of 
I  the  reasons  of  the  detention.     This  letter  also  remaining  unansweied, 
t'le  nndersigned  advised  the  commander  of  the  Kappahannock  to  give 
notice  of  his  intentit)n  to  strike  his  llag,  withdraw  his  crew,  and  abandon 
his  vessel  to  the  pro[ier  authorities  of  the  port.     This  stei>  was  accord- 
iiiiily  taken  by  the  commander,  who,  on  the  Kith,  informed  in  writing 
[tiic  commissary  of  marine  at  Calais  of  his  intention  to  abandon  his 
Vessel  on  the  ir»th  of  May.     In  th«'  nu'an  wiiile  the  undeisigni'd  was 
Uciliatly  informed  that  the  question  of  the  Rappahannock  had  beiMi  re- 
ferred tor  examination  ami  report,  by  yiuir  excellency,  to  a  commission 
lit  jiuiscousults,  an<l  having  reason  to  expect  a  piompt  and  dciinit*'  s;dn 
tioii  of  the  question,  advised  the  comirtander  of  tiie  ve.sse!  not  to  cany 
[out  the  intemled  abatidonment. 

More  than  month  ha«  now  elapsed  siin;e  the  reference  to  the  com- 
•4  A— II 


%  :i 


U 


50 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON I'AI'ERS    ACCOMPANYING 


■1   t 


[330]    mission  of  jurisconsults,  and  the  prospect  of  a  detinite  *solntioni 
of  the  (juestion  seems  to  be  as  remote  as  ever.    The  undersigned 
considering  a  hmger  acjpiiescence  in  the  detention  of  the  Kappahannock. 
without  even  the  allegation  of  a  cause  for  her  detention,  incompatible 
with  the  respect  due  to  the  Hag  of  the  government  that  he  has  the  honor 
to  represent,  intends  to  renew  the  advice  heretofore  given  to  her  coin 
manlier  to  strike  his  flag  and  abandon  his  vessel.     He  ventures  to  c.\ 
press  the  hoi)e  that  your  excellency  will  favor  him  with  a  reply  to  this  J 
letter,  in  order  that  he  may  be  able  to  communicate  to  his  government 
the  reasons  which  have  induced  your  excellency  to  pursue  a  course  so| 
little  in  accordance,  not  only  with  the  good  will  towards  the  Confede 
rate  States  which   was  suppose«l  to  animate  the  government  of  the 
Emperor,  but,  as  the  undersigned  thinks,  in  opposition  to  its  proclaimed  j 
neutrality.     The  undersigned  i»rays  your  excellency  to  receive  the  as 
Hurance  of  the  great  respect  with  which  he  has  the  honor  tt)  be  your  ex 
cellency's  most  obedient  servant, 

.lOlIN  SLIDKLL. 
His  Excellency  .Mr.  DiirvN  de  Em  ys, 

Minister  of  Foreign  AJfttirN. 


Mr.  lUnjamin  to  Mr.  John  ISlidcl!. 
[f:xt,ract.] 

.  Dei'autmknt  of  State, 

Jiichniond,  June  l.*3,  1S04. 
Sir:  T  can  scarcely  trust  myself  with  the  exinession  of  the  indigiia 
tion  felt  by  the  i)resi(lent  at  the  evasmns  and  injustice  of  the  Frenclij 
government  in  relation  to  the  Ka])pahannock.     lie  is  of  opinion  tlint 
the  delay  in  the  acti«)n  finally  taken  by  you  on  the  sultject  went 
|.''..'!1J    *to  the  extreme  verge  of  proi»riety,  and  is  gratified  to  fiiul  tlint 
the  decisive  step  was  a<lopted  of  striking  her  flag  and  leaving  lici 
to  the  responsibility  of  the  French  government.     The  speech  of  .Mr. 
Kouhcr  on  tlu'   1-th  ultimo  in  the  I'rench  chamber,  and  the  circnliir 
letter  of  INFr.  Drouyn  de  Ehuysof  4th  ultimo,  as  given  in  thatsjK'ech,  havt  [ 
Just  rea(;hed  us  in  the  Index  of  10th  May,  and  may  probably  be  regarded 
as  correctly  translated  by   Mr.   Ilol/.e.     They  indicate  so  complete  aiij 
''cxtcnte''  between  tluM'iibinetsof  Washington  and  I'aris.  that  weshouMI 
be  blind  indeed  if  we  failed  to  attach  to  these  incidents  their  true  si' 
niticance. 

I  am,  very  respecti'nllv.  vour  (fb^dient  servant, 

,\.  V.   r..:NJAMIN. 

Seen  tarj/  of'  Stair. 
Hon.  .loiiN  Slidkll,  \<.,  I'dris-. 


rS 


[33L'| 


*Mr.  Jnhn  Slidell  to  Mr.  J.  /'.  lUnjumin. 
[ICxtrnit.l 


I*  VIMS,  June  30,  ISOl. 
Sik:         •••••• 

1  said  •  •  *  *  that  I  had  asked  an  interview  for  the  purpose  (ill 
knowing  distinctly  what  was  to  be  done  with  the  Rappahannock  ;  tliatl 
sIm'  had  been  detained,  without  cause  assigned,  for  more  than  hnirl 
months;  and  that  I  could  not  obtain  a  written  response'  to  my  vari«>usl 


COHXTKK    CASE    OV    THE    UNITED    STATES. 


T)! 


roiiuniinicjitions  on  that  sul)je(!t.  I  liojted  now  to  liav*'  a  verbal  one. 
He  said  that  he  had  not  replied  to  my  eouiinunications,  be<'ause  he  was 
not  prei)ared  to  {:;ive  a  conchisive  answer;  tliat  he  had  written  the  day 
I)ri'vioiis  to  the  president  of  tlie  s«'nate  iiskinj;-  Ibr  an  early  report,  and 
so  soon  as  that  shonhl  be  receivetl  he  woidd  ilecitle  what  siiouhl  be 
done,  and  wonid  inform  me  of  his  (h'cision.        #        #         * 

I  have  obtained,  from  a  (^onJideiitial  source,  a  copy  of  the  '•dispositif' 
of  the  reporr  of  the  eonsidtative  committee  in  the  case  of  tlie  ]ia{ipa- 
liaiinock  ;  it  runs  tlnis: 

I.i^  ((Hiiitt-  ost  (r;i\is  <\\io  <'<'st  scnlriiiciit,  sons  In  <(iTMliti(iii  <l<'  ii'tliiiri-  rclVfctif  tin 
r((|iii]ia<;o  an  nimiliro  <les  homnics  qui  t'tiiiciit  .siir  If  iiavire  an  Jour  dn  l:i  n- 

[:•;(.'>]  'lai;lu>,  ct  apivH  l'a((OMiplis.s«nn('iit  dc  ccftf  coiulition  (|nc'  Ic  ;x<>n\  frnciiicnt  «l«i 
I'EiMjuM'fnr  dt'vra  lover  rintt'i'tlictinn  dt;   jtrcndrf  la   uht  i[\u  a  «•!<■  iirouonc'i-o 

(■oiitrc  Ic  iiaviic  conU'dtir  le  IJappaliuiiiiock. 

I  annex  copy  of  a  letter  addressed  by  me  to  the  Duke  de  Persi;j^ny  on 
the  subject  of  the  llappahannock,  written  at  his  suy;^estion,  that  lie 
mijiht  lay  it  befcne  the  Emperor,  which  he  has  done. 

(\nisi<leriny'  it  of  the  greatest  importance  that  we  should  continue  to 
harass  and  destroy  the  commerce  ot  the  en«Mny,  1  have  advised  Cuptain 
Ihillock  to  use  every  exertion  Ut  put  to  sea  at  as  early  a  <late  as  possible 
several  cruisers  to  supply  the  place  oi  the  Alabama,  and,  as  we  cannot  rely 
upon  havinji  vessels  expressly  construiited  for  the  purpose,  to  nud<e  use 
of  the  fittest  instrunuMits  that  he  can  ccmimand.  In  this  1  had  but  re- 
(•(sinmeudeda  j)urpose  that  he  hail  anticipated,  and  which  will  be  carried 

out,  and  to  which  Commodvire   liarron  j-ives  his  hearty  <oncurrence. 

•    «     * 

I  have  the  honor  to  remain,  with  jireat  respect,  v«»ur  obedient  siMvunt, 

'  .lOUN  SMDELL. 

Hon.  .1.  P.  IiEN.TAMIN, 

Secretari/  of  State. 


I' ill 

J: 


Mr.  'John  SlUldl  to  the  J>ide  <lc  Pi  is!fiin>. 
[Extract. 1 

Paris,  10  Rue  de  Mmhjnnn.  .Jane  17,  l.Siil. 

M|  *Mv  Dhau  DcKH  DM  PEUSKiNV:  To  whom  but  you,  the  only 
decide<l  and  consistent  friend  of  tln^  confederacy  whom  it  has  been 
my  fortune  t()  meet  in  France,  <!an  1  apply  Ibr  advice  and  assistance 
tnidcr  the  very  disajireeable  and  embarrassinj;'  circumstances  in  which  I 
tiiid  myself  ' 

'fhere  is,  however,  another  j;rievance,  comparativt'l\  of  very  minor 
iiiiportaiHH;  in  anmterial  point  of  view,  but  «»f  tlu'  <;i»\»test  ;;ravity,  inas- 
imich  as  it  trem-hes  the  hoiu)r  of  the  conl'ederatc  llaj;,  for  the  removal 
t>r  wliicli  I  invoke  your  <jood  ollices. 

Tlie  conftHlerate  steanu'r  Rappahannock  jiut  into  the  port  of  Calais  to 

iiciiiiir  dama^'i's  which  had  ociMirred  at  sea  :  she  was  hospitably  received, 

and  completed  her  repaiis  with  tln^  a}>probatiou  and  und«'r  the  surveil- 

lliuice  of  the  commissary  of  m:ui:M',  ai'tmg  under  the  instructions  of  the 

liiiiiiister  of  nmrine. 

Her  commamlant  ilesiriUjito  proe<'ed  to  sea,  applied,  on  the  17th  Feb- 
Iriiary  lust,  for  the  necessaiy  permissions,  which  was  denied.  The 
[i<lii|>  is  still  detained,  and  np  tt)  this  nion>«'nt  every  explanation  of  the 
[•aiiseof  her  detention  has  been  refused.     I::   the  month  of  April  the 


52 


TIM:ATY    of    WASHINGTON PAPKRS    AC'COMPANVING 


III , ' 


I 


<|\U'stioii  of  ln'itU'tt'iitioji  «;is  iclciu'd  l)y  tlir  ininistcr  of  fon'i;!:ii  nttairH 
to  tlM' *' coinitr- coiisnltiitif  dii  roiitriitirn''' for  cxaiiiinatiou  ami  report. 
That  coiiiiiiittoi',  provided  by  the  president  of  the  senate  and  eoujposed 
of  distin;:'iiished  jiiiiseonsults  antl  <lip1oniatists,  lias,  as  I  am  iii- 
|."..'5.'»J  toriiied  within  a  tew  days,  *deeided  unaninionsly  that  there  was 
no  sidheient  eansc?  for  tlie  detention  of  th«>  Ifiipitahannoek,  and 
lias  so  r»'|»orted.  J  liave  ;;«>od  reason  to  believe  that  tlie  report  wonM 
ha\elte«Mi  made  miieli  sooner  had  it  not  beeiiintimated  to  Mr.  Troploiij; 
that  it  wonhl  be  well  to  deter  it  nntil  the  chambers  shonld  have  ad- 
journed. 

I  eaniiot  permit  myself  to  believe  that  in  this  matter  ^I.  Dronyn  di 
Minys  is  aetin;;  in  >triet  aeeordane*;  with  the  wishes  of  the  Emperor; 
sure  I  am,  at  least,  that  the  Emperor  eannot  desire  that  insnlt  should  hv 
aild»'«l  to  injury,  as  it  iinqnestionably  is,  when  the  minister, althou<;h  re 
peatedly  asked,  will  not  even  eon<V'sceinl  to  give  a  reason  of  any  sort 
for  the  <-ourse  lie  thinks  jiroper  to  jtursue  :  a  eourse  wliieh  is  in  ilirect 
opposition  to  the  neutrality  wliieh  he  professes  his  resolution  to  main 
tain. 

Am  I  expeeting  too  mueli,  my  dear  Diil c  de  Persiyny,  when  I  express 
the  hope  that  your  jjreat  and  well-merited  intiuenee  will  be  exereise«l  t<» 
obtain,  if  not  redress  for  what  I  consider  a  tlaj^rant  wrong',  at  least  soiiu' 
explauittion,  w hi<.'li  will  relieve  me  from  the  humiliation  of  tinding  my 
remonstrances  systematically  unnoticed  by  the  minister  of  foreign 
a  If  airs. 

Believe  me,  most  faithfully  and  respectfully,  vour  friend  and  servant. 

dOHN  SEIDELL. 


i:!:(i;i 


I 


*Mr.  John  ASlidiU  to  Mr.  ./.  /'.  Ikujamin. 

f 
(  KxtlJK  t.] 


I'Ain.x,  Av'jiist  «S.  ISC"). 

8il{ :  ("ommodore  Uarron  and  Captain  Jiullock  have  fully  advised  tin' 
secretary  of  the  navy  of  the  reasons  which  induced  Cajitain  I'ountleroy 
not  to  avail  himself  of  the  tardy  and  ungracious  iiermission  for  the  sail 
ing  of  the  Jtappahannock.  They  may  be  summed  up  in  tin'  iuade^pmc.v 
of  the  number  of  men  which  he  was  allowed  to  retain,  the  impo.ssil>ilit,v| 
of  ship[)ing  and  dispatching  Irom  ICngland  or  elsewhere  the  remaindci 
id  the  crew,  the  ])resence  «>f  four  of  the  enemy's  cini>ers  in  the  neigh 
borhood  of  Calais,  the  inability  of  the  ship  to  carry  more  than  live  da\> 
lull  supply  of  coal,  and  In-r  general  nntitness  for  the  service  in  which | 
.she  was  to  be  emitloyed. 

I  have  the  honor  t(»  l»e.  with  great  resj)ect.  your  most  obedient  ser 
vant, 

JOHN  SEIDELL. 

rion.  J.  r.  HKN.fAMlN, 

i<ei't'i't(n'ii of  Staff. 


\XVJ\  M  L— 1  T  A  L  V  . 

Coilke  pvnalf  thl  nyno  d'' Italia. 

174.  Chiunque  con  atti  ostili  non-aj)provati  dal  governo  del  re  avr;i| 
espo.sto  lo  statu  ad  una  dichiuruicioue  di  guerra,  sara  punito  colla  relega T 


COrNTEK    CASK    OF    TlIK    INITKD    STATES. 


53 


/ioiio;  so  lii  {.jiR'ira  ne  fosse  scgni til,  la  jiciia  sara  dci  lav(»ii  Ibr/.ati  ;i 
t«'inp(». 

17.">.  ChiiiiKiuo  I'on  atti  noii  approvati  <lal  ;;(>vt'ni(>  (k'l  re  avraesjjosto 
rt'«,'iiic<)li  a  vollVirc  lapprcsaf^lio,  sara  puiiito  colla  n'U*;;a/,ioue  estensilde 
iid  amii  dioci  o  col  ean-eiv ;  salve  Ic  i>i'iu'  inaj^giori  in  cui  losse  ineorso 
per  <jliatti  conuiK'ssi. 

Si  il  colpt'VoU'  r  Mil  ;>un/.ioii;uio  i)uhlico  so<,'j;iact'ia  alia  jioiia  della 
R'k'ya/ioiio. 

[Trail  iiitHiii.] 
Vinal  statiitc  of  the  lliuj(]oin  of  ItiiJi/. 

174.  If  any  jxTson  wiiosocvor  shall,  l\v  acts   not  antliori/cd  by  the 

;;-ovcinnicnt  of  tin-  Kin;j,  have  cxi»osc(l  the  state  to  a  tU'clarati<ui 

|;!l(i|    of  war,  lie  shall  *bc  i>unisluMl  with  banisliincnt ;  if  the  war  has 

been  actually  carried  out,  he  shall  be  punished  with  temporary 

jtciial  servitude. 

17."».  If  any  person  whosoever  shall,  by  a(;t.<  not  approved  of  by  the 
;,'()verninent  of  the  Kin;;',  have  exposed  the  subjects  of  the  kin.i;(h)ni  to 
reprisals,  he  shall  be  punished  with  banishuient  even  for  a  term  of  ten 
years,  or  with  imprisonment,  without  prejudice  to  any  further  ]>enalty 
to  which  he  may  be  lialdo  on  account  of  the  acts  he  has  committed.  If 
the  ((H'entler  be  a  public  functionary,  he  shall  bo  lumished  with  ban- 
ishment. 

These  provisions  are  similar  to  those  of  the  Code  Penal  of  France  on 
the  same  subject,  and  to  those  of  the  Netherlands,  liel^ium,  IJavaria, 
Spain,  Portugal,  and  other  countries  of  Iairo[)e,  as  t:ollected  in  the  work 
entitled  '•  Le  yularioni  comparatodcl  codi(;e  peualo  Italiano,"  by  !Mar- 
teiio  Speciolo  Castelleri,  p,  L'S4.  In  all  these  codes,  therefore,  the  com- 
mentaries, cases,  and  opinions,  havin;;'  reference  to  Articles  S4  and  S."} 
of  the  Code  IV'iial  of  I'ranee,  ajiply.  Sju'cial  <'ommi'ntary  thereon  is, 
iievertheh'ss,  subjoined. — ((.'ommeiitario  «lel  codice  penale,  T.  JVrrarotti, 
Vol.  1,  i»p.  i*«;i,l'(L'.) 


■  *  -3 

ir 


:'  : 


1 


( 

!  ■ 


i  ^  il 


Ih; 


Mr 


Ml  I    *Vo(}ki  (hij'i  f.v  stati  fJu'toiKi — ,1/7.  ICi'.l,  /(.  t),   \'('(jf/<tsinv  U  tvsto koUo 

I'ort.  1(»1>  ji>/'(c< '/(■// /c. 


Occorendo  decider«'  (piali  atti  abbiano  a  ritciiersi  siccome  <'apaci  ad 
csporre  i  rc^nicoli  a  sul)ire  rapprcsa^lie .'  Consultinsi  Ciirnot,  (\nmn. 
snir  art.  S."»,  n.  L*. — Ihius.  Osseri.  .'>ul.  iuo«i'.  Ilel^..  t.  11,  i>.  -."». — Ihillo:,  t. 
XX\'II,  ]».  7. —  h'aiittr,  Tratt.  didrit.  ciiiii.,  ^  L.'S7. — CliKitrcan  it  Ilrlit, 
t.  1,  n.  KML',  edi/.  iJrux. 

II  fattt>  d'aver  tentato  di  allontanare  militari  na/.ionali  dalle  loro  ban- 
(liere  per  farli  i)assare  in  pa«-se  stianiaro,  constituisce  il  crimincMli  reclii- 
tiunento  all'  (^stero,  ancoridn*  lo  stato  non  al>bia  netnici  all'  estero  ne 
I  ihelli  air  interno,  e  sia  in  pace  con  tutte  le  altre  ]»roten/e.  Cass.  Franc., 
li  ajHil,  IS.'ll.— .SVr.,  t.  XXXI,  parte  1,  jt.  .177— 1;>  febbraio,  182.'!.— 
Motin  c  S<(bir(',  1.  c. — On-not,  art.  1>J,  n.  (». 

Sulla  (piestione  so  lo  scopo  <Ii  o^uesto  articulo,  sia  «li  punireo^ni  arma- 
nuMito  illej^ale,  ovvcro  si)ltanto  e  piii  verosiinilmente  la  leva  illefjittinia 
tli  trni)pe  armate,  rarmamento  ille;;ale  di  sohlate  destinati  nelP  inten- 
/ione  deir  a  j:«*nte  ad  attacare  i  poteri  dello  stato .' — Vedi  nel  prinio 
xcaso  CitHH.fmm:  l'.\  fihbraio,  IHi'.?,  rifiiitn  <la  Cnrnot  huW urt.  Dli,  n.  <». — 
Contra  nel  secondo  senso  e  piii  rettamente,  secondo  nol:  Chanreau 
•)4'-]    *('t  UilU\  t.  1,  n.  117*J,  ed.  lirux.     t^uindi  sembra  in(iuesio  ultiaio 


■n'- 


i.Cil 


54 


TRKATY    OF    WASHINGTON — PAPERS    ACt'OMPANYINO 


I 


u 


soTiso  iieccssaiio  clu'  lojji'tto  doll'  arniolamoiito  sia  dotoimiiiato  nelle 
quistioiii  sottopo.stf  ai  ^iiirati'. 

Carnnt  sx\\V  ixrt.'.yj,  u.  Iv.  Schiir  r  Cartnrt,  VawM.  i\q]  diit. — Atton 
tatc  politic!,  1. 11,  p.  *_'17,  opinaiu)  cIm'  la  paroU*— .s/'mca  Vavtorhzazione  dd 
iforcrno  del  tr — ospri'ssc  in  (pio-sto  articulo,  iion  dt'bonno  iiiti'iideisi  in  unc 
senso  troppo  assolnto.     riic  pt-nio  rar}i«Mito,  il  «jnalti  sata  pnMH'duto  ad 
una  leva  di  noinini  srn/a   Pantoiiz/aziono  del  |»()r('t',  sava  iion  diniono 
Ncnsabilc  so  avra  aj;ito  i»«'r  oidine  doi  suoi  supoiioii  ncir  oidinc  ^-cra 
elii(M),  0  talc  arruolanionto  sia  stato  un  atto  (lolla  snt^  i'nnzioni.    Cio 
]»o.st(),  Morin,  tliz. — I'snipazionc  di  ant«uita — s()};}i;ninj;o  clu'  la  (pu'st'jne 
di  sapere  si^  talo  ordino  od  antori/zazioni'.  .siano  st.iti  Icj^ittiniainiinto 
ossia  roj^olarniiMitc  <lari,  del*!/  osstvro  jjosta,  si)i>ttandj  all'  a(!i;u.sato  di 
lorniriii   la  ]>i()\a  od  ai  .uiiiiali  di  approz/arla. 


[■•54:?] 


TTiiinhlittion.  1 


StaliiUof  the  (iiiciott  Sfntrs  nf  Estr,  Art.  1(5'.),  Xo.  0. — ^cc  t!ir  tc.ct  under 

Alt.  li'i'.K  (ilwre  inentioned. 

The  (piostion  boin;;  to  doride  uliat  ac.'ts  arc  to  l>o  consid«*rod  as  hoinpf 
liable  to  oxposo  tlio  snbjoots  of  the  kingdom  to  icpnsals.  (Joii.snlt 
Coniof,  Coniniont.  on  art.  S.^,  N«).  1'. — Hans,  Obsoiv.  on  Jloljiiian  IMoj., 
Aol  ii,  J).  '_'.'». — lUillir.i)^  \u\.  x.wii.  ]>,  7. — liauttr,  I'roatiso  on  ('^riininal 
l{ij>ht,  s«'0.  LMiT. — Cliaiivoau  and  ilolio,  vol.  i,  No.  Idfii',  lOdit.  of  l>rn.s- 
sols. 

The  fact  ol"  lia\  in;;  at  templed  to  enliee  away  national  soldiers  and  to 
take  tlieni  away  to  a  f<trei;in  eonntiy,  constitutes  tlni  crime  of  iecrnitin<>- 
abroad,  tlionyli  the  State  be  not  atwarwitli  any  forei,;i;n  natio:i,  not 
contending'  uitli  any  rebels  in  the  country,  and  l)e  at  pea»'e  with  all 
other  i»o\vers.  (l'rcn<'li  Conit  of  Cass.,  April  '_',  IS.'il — Sir,  \-ol.  xxxi, 
pait  1,  )).  377,  Februai-y  \'.\.  ISi'.'j. — Morin  and  Sebire.  !.  c. — ("ainot,  art. 
t>L'.  No.  (i.) 

i)\\  the  <|neslion  as  to  tin-  b<'arin.u  of  sai«l  article,  whetliei-  it  i>e  in- 
tended to  imnish  all  tinlawtnl  armament,  or  only  and  more  likely  the 
ilU';;ilimate  levying  of  troops  and  nnlawfnl  armament  of  soldiers  in- 
teiide«l  to  attark  tlie  authority  of  the  State,  see.  in  the  lirst  sense, 
l'ren<h  Court  of  ("assation,  I'ebruaiy  1.},  IfSL'.".,  ipioted  by  Ca/.not, 
|.;H|  *ou  ait. '.»!.',  No.  <•:  a;:aiiist  the  second  sense,  and  nunc  riyhtly, 
as  it  appears  to  us,  Chauveau  and  Ilelie,  vol.  1,  N(»,  H7ti.  J»russ. 
ed.  In  this  latter  sen.se,  it  seems  necessary  that  the  object  of  the 
enlistment  be  deteiinineil  in  the  questions  presented  to  the  considera- 
tion of  tlu'  jury. 

Carnot  on  art.D-,  No.  1,  ami  S«'bire  and  Carteret  ICmiydopedia  of  Law, 
Political  Otlenses.  vol,  ii.  |>.  1.'17,  deem  that  tht  words  "without  the 
authorization  of  the  government  of  the  kiny"  in  this  article,  are  not  to 
be  understood  in  a  too  absolute  sense ;  therefore,  that  the  agent  who 
shidl  have  proceeded  to  levy  men  without  the  authorization  of  the  p:ov 
eminent  shall  nevertheless  be  ex<.*usable  if  he  shall  have  acted  in  con 
fornu\iu;e  w  ith  the  tlirections  of  his  hierarchical  superior.s,  and  if  such 
enli.stment  shall  liave  been  i>art  of  his  onlinary  functions. 

On  tht'se  premi.ses,  Morin,  Usurpation  of  Authority,  contends  more- 
over that  the  queKtion,  whetlu'r  such  directions  or  such  authorization 
be  legitimately  or  regularly  given,  is  to  be  |)resented  to  the  eonsid- 
eration  of  the  jury,  and  that  the  defendant  is  i'xpected  to  give  the  proof 
thereof,  and  the  jury  is  to  decide  on  the  value  of  said  proof. 


^jiierra  ou 


COUNTKR    CASE    OF    THK    I'NITKl)    .STATES. 


55 


:)V, 


III 


poutim;  A  L. 


No.  1.  Codt'  jiihI  Commontiirv. 

No.  2.  Krtbrt.s  to  J'n'servc  tin;  Nt'iitiiHity  of  tlio  Azores  nnd  Madeira. 

No. .'{.  Liinitiitioiis  of  Asylnm  to  the  Florida  at  Fiuichal. 

No.  I.  Case  of  the  "Stonewall.*' 


.US  I 


*N().  1.— C'ODK  AND  t'O.MMHNTAIfY. 


Ih'  111- 
'ly  the 
'IS  in- 
.<eiise. 
"a/uot, 
iuhtly, 
ilruss. 
of  the 
^idera- 

)f  Law, 
)Ut  the 
not  to 
nt  who 
\e  pov 
ill  con 
if  such 

■^  more- 
ization 
cousid- 
e  proof 


Tlirorift  ilo  tiinito  pciial,  npplicnihi  as  roilif/o  prnol  pnrtinjuf:,  n»)ipnrado 
com  0  cod  iff)}  do  Iif(t:il,*h-is  patrian,  codhjos  e  h'is  vriminacs  do8 
jioros  aiifiijoN  c  niodt'rnos.  (tjf'crerida  a  S.  M.  I.  I).  Sh'.  />.  Vvdro  11. — 
liHIirrador  )io  Hr(i:il  per  F.  A.  F.  Ihr  Silra  Fcrnut.     Vol.  I  V.    [IJshoa,, 

AKTKJi^  14S". — Todo  o  portii^i'Uez  <|ne,  por  (piaesquer  aetos  nao 
iuictoiisados  i)elo  j^ovei'no,  exjxizer  o  estado  a  nnia  declaraefio  do 
;,'iierra  ou  expozer  os  portuj^nezes  a  n'jtresalias  dii  parte  do  uina  poten- 
(ia  estranj'eira,  seii'i  condeinnado,  se  a  };iierra  on  as  represalias  so 
s(';;iiirein,  a  ilejri'edo  teinporario;  e,  se  a  ^^iierra  on  as  lepresalias  .se  nao 
sciiiiireni,  a  prisfio  (M)rreetional  <U>sde  nn»  a  ti'es  annos.  JSalva  a  pena 
iiiaior  em  (pie  possa  ter  incorndo  seo  fa<'to  pratieado  ior  erinie  jtnnido 
pela  lei  coin  ])ena  niais  ;nrave.  (Art.  -!>',  N'  I'e  rel". ;  art.  .'i<>"  N '.  4' 
e  ref. ;  Cart.,  Const.,  art.t>",  ^  -'. 

|.')41IJ        *Con('ordani  eoni  a  litra  e  disposirao  d'este  art.  o  cod.  Vi.,  art. 
SI  e  85,  Ilesp.,  art  1 4S,  do  IJrazil,  art.  7.),  das  Dnas  Sicilias,  art. 
117  e  lis,  da  8ardenlia,  ait.  17!>  e  ISO,  e  o  nosso  tie  1S;»7,  art.  ll.'J. 

Coin  a  dill'erciica  de  que  o  Cod.  Vv.  e  t)s  das  Dnas  Sicilias  e  Sardeiilia, 
(|U('  o  iinitarain,  distintin;;nirain  a  ineriininarrio  i)ara  tratar  d Vila  .sepa- 
ladaniente,  (piando  resnltasse  coinproinettiitieiito  da  paz,  e(piando  so- 
iiK'iite  a  ])rovoca(;i"io  a  represalias. 

()  Cod.  do  IJrazil,  o  nosso  de  ls;;7  e  o  llesj). liz<Main  deainbos  os  casoii 
iiiiia  so  inciiniinarao.     Ivste  nosso  art.  assim  o  jn-aticon  tainitein. 

Mas  sem  lasao  siUllciente,  e  eonsiderainos  preferivel  aapreciaeao  feita 
pclo  ( 'od.  Kr.  f  sens  iinitadores.  Se  e  neeessaria,  nos  terinos  d'este  art., 
)iiiia  constitiiir  a  eiiininalidade,  a  eveiitnalidade  do  inal  resnltante  do 
lati  facto  material,  a  ,iiravi<lade  da  pena  deve  ser  medida  sobrca  ^ravi- 
liiide  das  consiMpieiicias  d'esse  facto. 

Ora  s«^  as  conse(ineneias  sao  maiores  no  caso  da  eventnalidadi!  «l;i 
jjiierra  que  no  das  n'presalias,  qnaiido  naosejam  gauwH  c  coittiuunN  a  in- 
criiiiinacaodevia  dividirse  para  dar  lo^ar  a  iliscriininar  a  pena,  attenu- 

ando  se  na  segunda  hypothese. 
I  !.")0]        *()utra  dirtereii(;a  notavel  existe  no  Cod.  Fr.,  art.  84,  quaiito  ao 
facto  material.    Nao  basta  que  es.se  facto  inXo  seja  anctorisado  pelo 
Koverno,  e  i>reci.so  tamblMu  que  seja  hostil  de  sua  natnreza  "ymr  des  actions 
hosfiles.''' 

Os  Cod.  da  Sardeidia  e  das  Diias  Sicilias  con.servaram  para  o  caso  a 
iiH'sina  expressao,  e  o  ultimo  Ihcacresceiitou  a  hyjmthese  de  o  facto  ser 
tal  ipie  a  lei  o  qualiUcasse  crime  "^wr  qiidque  crime  oupar  dcs  actes  hos- 
tiles.'' 

Assim  a  loi,  quando  .se  tratasse  de  avaliar  .se  o  facto  era  ou  nao  hontil 
iiiTo  definia  (piaes  eram  os  que  deviain  ou  nao  tomar  cs.so  caracter,  mas 
lii'.iva  eutao  ao  arbitrio  dosjuizes  o  pronunciar  a  tal  rcspeito,  absolvendo 
OS  reus sempre que setrata.s.se  de  ac<;oe8  illicitas  so  pelo  fuiidamento  nega- 
tii'o  de  nao  ser  o  tVw^to  auctorisado  pelo  governo,  t'uudamento  in- 
iulmissivel  por  incoustitucioual ;  porque  a  auctorisa(;ao  do  governo  so  6 


\ 


I:-   k 


:| 


^ 


5(; 


TRKATY    (tr    \VA.SniN(;TO\ PAPKHS    ACCOMPANYIXf} 


4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

nocossiiiia  qu:m<l(»  sr  cxifxo  iifio  vaj^aniontc,  mas  para  certos  o  detfrnii- 
iin<los  aj'tos,  0  a  Iri  tolcra,  iKTiiiitte,  tinlo  qiianto  nao  proliibo. 

O  Cod.  IIcsp..  nao  coiiscrvou  a  exprossao '' /tox/iV  do  Co«l.  Fr.  in;is 
coni;;iii  a  do  iiM'smo  Cod.,  jxmdo  ciii  lo^^ar  da  oxpre.ssao  "/j«h  approun's 
jKti  It  ijoiiidmment"  a  dc  ''no  autorizados  «'onipotc'ntenu'nte," 
[3."»lj  <•  assini  n.lo 'nM|Ufi  aiictorisarao  do  jjovj-rno  <|uai)d(>  o  Iju'to  sc 
arliar  atutoi isado  \h\,\  h'i,  (|m'  dis]»t'nsa  toda  «•  (|ual<|nor  outni 
aiictoiisa«;rio,  v  jiara  o  caso  ilispi-nsava  o  t'nipn'<;o  da  ('xpr('ssao"/«o.v//V' 
assini  conio  aluanyia  as  diias  ideas  do  Cod.  das  Diias  Sicilias  "  (•/•('wrx 
ou  Imsfis." 

()  Cod.  do  r.ra/.il  ainda  «'■  niais  explicito  une  to«los  cstos  Cod.,  conio 

sc  vt*  das  pida\  i:is  «|iu'  jul<;auios  dij^nas  <le  a(|ui   traiiscn'vcr  na  siui 

intfyia  : 

"  CoiiiriU'tfiT  oc'in  onlciii  on  a^lf•t<lri^*av■"^<>  do  {jovcrno  lio^nrKhuhs  <oiitm  im  xnhtViloi  (.'- 
oitlrii  iuin'iii.  (If  iiianciia  <|ii<'  sr  ruiii|)rotiiftta  ii  i)a/  on  ]irovoi|iii-iii  as  i'f]ircsalia>i." 

Assiin  sc  tifa  cntendrndo  (pic,  sc  o  facto  cm  si  lor  tal  que  scirmnlo  o 
dirciio  intcrnacional  nao  jiojIcssc  dar  Jiisto  motiv(>  dc  jjiicrra.  nnncii. 
com  (piauto  nao  auctorisado  jtelo  jjovciiio  c  mesmo  qiian<lo  a  c\ cntiiali- 
dadc  <la  ;iiicrra  se  si-^iiiissc,  podcria  st-r  rcpiiitado  crinie.  .Simillianic 
facto  nao  e  cntfM*  niotivo,  mas  mcio  ]>rcxtcxto. 

Calic  nos  limitcs  da  |M»ssiltilidadc  moral  cvitar  factos  dc  <pi«'   p(»ssani 

rcsultar  Justos  motivos  dc  ^iicrra,  n'conliccidos  j;cralmcntc  porta«'s: 

nao  V  dado  pon'-m  a  i^udcncia  humana  prevcnir  at«'*  os  jirctcxtos. 

[.'(."ii'i        " \  ineiiminaefio.  tal  <m)mio  sc  acha  fcita  uVstcart.,  naosc<j;niii 

ostes  modclos. 

Alcm  dc  nao  distin;:iiicr  factos  do  divcrsa  uravidadc,  caindo  a  esse 
rcspcito  no  defcito  do  <  'od.  IIcsp.,  do  I>ra/.il  c  do  no^  dc  IS.'iT,  comju'c- 
licndcndo  •*  f//fa.<(r//;r»'  rf(Yf;.s-,"  abriii  a  ]»orta  a  proeosos,  cuja  criminii- 
lidadc  nao  tcm  ncni  podc  tcr  vcnladc  moral. 

Por  cstc  nnulo  c  dcliiiixo  d\'stcs  dois  ]t<(ntos  dc  vista,  <»  art.  <•  mais 
<lefcituos(>  (pic  OS  do  Iha/il.  llcsjiaidia  c  dc  is.'IT,  c  nao  adopttai  d'cstcs 
o  que  tinliam  dc  l)om,  nao  imitando,  prccisando  on  ampliando  o  ([[W  o 
Fr.  c  OS  {hi  Italia  snpracitados  lia\  iani  prcscript(». 

Qnanto  ii  pcnalida<lc,  alcm  do  ^rrandc  jtcrij^o  dc  sc  ]»odcr  incrirninai 
nm  facto  licito.  rcsulta  «la  confnsi'io  das  duas  consc<pUMicias  cventnacs. 
<livcrsas  cm  frra\  idadc,  a  <lcsproporcao  da  mcsma  i»cna  cm  rcla«;ao  aos 
factos  i>rovo«'atlorcs  das  yfimsolid.s. 

Esto  incrimitiacfaK  na  sna   si;,Miiticacao  mais  amjda,  comprciicmlc  to- 

das  as  viasjlc  facto  ollcnsivasdc  nm  suhditooudc  uma  nacaocstranfrcini. 

nicsu""  as  jpic  sc  icdn/.cm  a  simjdcs  injurias.     Assini.  a  pcna  jiodcrji  scr 

^Miivissima  qiiando  o  facto  dc  provocacao  t(»r  iMsi<;nilicantc  ou 

[.>■».'.]    insifihiticantissimo,  *c  ainda  (pnuido  os  da   rcprcsalia,   tcndo-sc 

<piido.  forem  dc  considcracao  jtouco  attcndivel. 

Comtudo.  para  sc  redn/.ir  tanto  qnanto  c  possivel  a  applicacao  d'cstc 
nosso  art.  a  proporcocs  jnstas,  os  jui/.cs  i>odcrao  cncontrar,  «pianto  ii 
criminalidadc  do  tacto,  <piando  avaliada  |)clas  snasconsc(picn<-ias,  a  dis- 
posicao  do  Cod.  no  art.  _(►,  nos.  5  e  ll,combiimda  com  o  art.  <Si*,  c 
(pnmdosc  naovciilicarnm  cssasconscqueneiasou  forcm  scm  importanciii. 
ii  disjiosiciM>  do  nicsiho  art.  UIJ.  no.  ll,combinadocom  o  art.  .s;{,  no.  40. 

C)  Cod.  porcm  c  atpii  i»revi«lcnte  cm  jtarte,  pois  sc  nao  rcsalvoii  os| 
ciBOS  em  que  ao  facto  mat<*rial  corresponda  uma  ^x/uf  minor,  rcsalvoii 
aipielles  a  (pn-  dcva  inipor  sc  uma  pcna  maior. 

Emcndou  assim  a  omissfio  dos  Cod.  llcsj).  e  Fr.,  adoptou  a  (pie  se 
aclia  nos  da  Italia  supracitad«>s,  e  vitou  o  defeitodc  ijjual  dcclaracao  do 
Cod.  do  Brazil,  rcstricta  as  oflcnsas  coramettidas  contra  subditos  bra- 
ziIeiro8. 


COl'NTl'K    CASK    OF    TllK    I'MTKl*    STATKS. 


57 


>'(»  Cod.  (lii  IJavicra,  art.  ■»(K),  so  incriniina  o  facto  d'aciiu'lle  ([lie 
tctilia  <la<lo  iiao  so  uin  iiiotivo  I'liiulado,  mas  aiiida  (xu^asiao,  t'aci- 
[,'l,"»4l  lida<li'  0  at*'  pt'etcito  para  nma  luu^^To  ('straii*j;oira  se  oolkxtar  oin 
t'stado  dc  yiiorra,  mas  cxiy,!'  csscMicialmeiite  (jue  o  tenha  assim  i)ra- 
tic'iid<»  com  esse  mesmo  lim  '•  dans  unc  liitcnflon  hostiU;'^  o  ii\w  salva  com- 
ph'taiin'iitc  todo  o*lioso  <\\w  resulta  do  cmpn'fjo  da  palavra  pretc.vto, 
cxtcpto  ((tiaiito  a  pcnaluhnlc;  j)or(|ue  a<pu'lU>  quo  n'nma  intonrao  hostil 
pratica  lactos  do  provocaoiu*  do  yuorra  fnndados,  iiao  dt'vo  sor  ooiisi- 
(lerado  namosmaliidiado  crimiiialidade  (pie  o  (pto  iia  mosma  intoiioao  so 
saltiuiiiistrou  um  jn'ctcxto. 

So  a  <;uorra  s<'  iiao  jiistilioa  \w\;\  jjravitlado  da  provocaofio,  a  impiita- 
(•.u)  moral  <las  siias  ooiisoipioiicias  so  ilivido  o  rooao  sobre  a  iiaojVo  iiii- 
iiii;;a. 

0  crimo,  como  toinos  o\]>osto  om  oiitros  lojjaros,  para  sor  pimido  ootri 
jiistioa  dovo  sor  ooiisidorado  taiito  iia  sua  causa  moral  reuwta  como  iia 
sua  tavsa  moral  pro.rima,  sorii  altstraliir  <los  sous  clffitos  o  da  inlluoiicia 
(jiio  uma  ou  outra  causa  tonlia  para  olio  oxoroido. 

Autos  do  oouoluirmos  as  nossas  obsorvaooos  sobro  (»  prosoulo  art.  iio- 
tnromos  (pio  so  tom  consurado  ii'ollo  um  dotoito  mais  do  roihu-oao  (juo  <1(^ 
(IdUtriria:  i)ur(pio  oomprolu'udoudo  jtara  a  rojtrossrio,  tanto  a  jirovoca- 
'Ao  productiva  do  (leclaranlo  <U'  (jmrra  como  do  rcprcsaUas  j)arooo 
|.'..*)."(|  *tloixar  impuuo  a  itrovocaoao  a  liosfilidttilcs,  (pu'  nao  tomam  o  oa- 
ractor  iioui  do  ijHerra  ^hrlarada,  nom  (W  atacpio  ouolVonsas  iudivi- 
(liiat's  a  portn},'uo/.os.  Ivsta  omissao  tern  i)arooido  j^navissima  oiu  uui 
('(»<1.  Ponal,  priiioipalmonto  t  in  jirosonca  <lo  art.  IS'  das  disjtosiooos 
•rcraos,  vo<huulo  ampliar  a  iutorprotarao  alom  ilos  sous  tormos,  ombora 
cxista  idoiitidado  ou  ainda  maioria  de  ra/.ao. 

Todavia,  como  as  rrprcsalias  compn-lioiidom  toiJos  os  mva^s  ponslvcis 
do  uma  iiaoao  ab-anoar  rvpara^-ao  (U»  mal  (pio  rocobou,  o  jxulomsor  nctja- 
tiras  ou  positivas,  o  ostas  (fcracfi  ou  cspcciaeN,  recaiiido  ou  sobro  oousaa 
(la  iia(;rto  ou  do  individuos  a  olla  portonooutos  ;  na  oxprossfio  reprcsalitc 
so  comprehondom  us  ItoNtiHiladcft.  Alom  d'isso  ua  doolara(;;"io  de  jjuorra, 
oxprossao  do  <pio  sorvo  oart.,  secomprohondocomoo<piivalentoa  dcdarn- 
{do  lie  liostilitladcs,  ;i  ([ual  jxhIo  prooodor  o  vmoargn  ou  arrcsto,  <pie  so  re- 
laxa  obtida  a  ropara(;i"io,  mas  (pio  outra  ossoncialmente  na  oxprossao 
rcprrsallaft. 

O  vordadoirodofoito  do  rodaoi;*!!)  (pio  notamos  v  o  (pie  faz  sui)por  no 
prosonto  art.  oomo  impossivol  uma  ;;iiorra  som  doclara(;ao  previa.  As- 
sim 0  recebido  como  jirincipio  ontro  as  na(;('>os  antijjas  e  modornas,  mas 
na  ])ratio:i,  som  roprosalias  nom  doolara<;ao  al^nima  i)rovia  solomno 
[.T»G|  •sotom  visto,  o  ('  jiortanto  possivol  comO(;ar  a  ^uorra  do  i'aoto, 
(juanto  a  na(;aooftondi(la  ou  ajijirossora  tem  por  inconvonionto  j)ro- 
vf'iiir  o  avisnr  a  na(;ri()  ollonsora  ou  ajjjrredida. 

Assima  oxprossao  t\o  art.  a  uma  dcclara<;do  de (lucrra  "  dovia  sor  emon- 
(lada  pela  exprossfio"  a  uma  fruerra  ''aiicune  d«''claration  ou  autre  avis 
.1  ronnomi  {U^^  roxistonoo  de  la  },nierro  est  n(''cossain^  pour  U'l-alisor  los 
liostilit(''S.*'  (Wlioaton,  Droit  intern.,  tom.  1',  p.  271>.)  (^iiando  poivm 
nao  precede  a  •■•uorra  a  doclara(;ao  o  (*►  mesmo  I'aoto  da  };uerra  (pie  dis- 
poiisa  e  projudica  ou  antes  oxpiime  a  doolara(;ao;  e  assim  «levo  enten- 
(U'l-se  o  ]>rosonto  art. 

Com  mais  lundamonto  dovo  notar-se  fpio  nas  palavras  do  (pie  lan(;ou 
mfis  o  leyislador  "  iodo  o  portuaucz"'  imita(;rio  do  Cod.  Fr.  "  tout  /ran- 
(;<fi.s — imroce  a  cliar-se  um  arjjnmento  concliidente  da  compreliensao  doa 
uiinistros  d'estado  ;  masque  esto  aryumento  perde  fjrande  i)arte  da  sua 
I'oioa,  em  vista  dos  art.  14(1',  147",  e  14.S'    aonde  as  mesmas  palavras, 


M 


I 

1: 

''ii 

i'v 


K 


a  'i 


ii   J  ' 


J 


n' 


58 


TRKATY    OF    WASHINGTON PAPKRS    ACCOMPANYINCS 


*    ft 

hi 
!■! 


<■  ttulo  u  pnrtuifuez^  sA  otoiniiilus  n>iiitMMitidiiil<*«ii^tiiicta  tia  <>iitiila«l('  tjo- 
rerno,  <•  piirtanto  distiiicta  ttos  iiiiliviiltios  ipie  i>  ciini|MMMn. 

I'anTt*  rcailtar  da  n'dai'rai)  t'spcrial  •rr«»ti'  art.  i|m*  soiiuMitr  inxlcrai) 
s«T  culpadoH  OS  miiiistros  d'cstatlo  |k-|i)s  rriiiH*s  pifx  i.stos  iiu.  ait.  1  Mi', 
«'  lis,  i|uaiHlo  tiurtorisanm  oa  tartos  ;;t'raliiiiMit«*  puiiiveis  contra  ^^toilo 
o  i>nrtuifnr:"'  aiictor  principal  c  dirccto,  sc  a  aiictorisaca  ».  considcrada 
c«  ino  oi'dcni,  conscllio  on  pro vocai-a. »/<*/'  riiuiii  flrUniihunitf  tui  nnia  das 
caiisjLs  dctcrniinantcs  do  nicsnio  facto.  i|iialitira<lo.s  cntao  os  inini.s- 
tros  d'cstado  coiiio  |>artici|iantcs.  coan<-toii*s  oii  ciinipliccs,  sc;;niido  o 

;;ran  dc  inllncnj-ia  qnctivcrani  ••  |H'las  rc^ras  p-ra»'s  dos  art.  li'r, 
|.'L>sj    V  lmJ'.  •Isto  porcni  ac«*nsa  a  dcticicncia  •*  i  ncobcrciicia  do<  'od.  com 

rclacao  aos  niinistios  dVstado.  S*-  cM*-*  >«•  considcrarn  partici- 
panics  cm  i;;nal  yran,  o  tacto  cm  rcIa«;;Vi  a  dies  dcvia  srr  niais  scvcra- 
niiMiti*  rcprimido  do  <|nc  a  rcspcito  dos  oiitros  co-n'Mis.  ponpico  ahnsodc 
iMMlcr  c  t'alta  dc  Icaldadc  nao  c  nicnos  nni  clt-nu-nto  aijni  dc  a^grava- 
«;ao  «jMc  na  li\potln's»'  do  §  nn — do  art.  1  l-i . 

JScria  injustilicav«'l  <pic  nn  INn-tn^'ncz  S4»  cobriss;*  para  dcsviar  a  pen  a 
CM!n  a  ani'torisaca  »  dc  nm  mitiistro  d'»*stailo:  c.ri««.i  r«Mnot  i  das  liostili 
dadcs  on   rcprcsalias,  c  o  nicsnio   niinistro  tiiM>s««  irrcsp«»iisavcl    pcla 
cnnccs.sao  da  nu'sina  anctorisacao  cm  diatnctral  rrpu;^iiancia  com  o  art. 
1*1  »s  . 

l>cmais,  n(»s  tci-nios  dV'stc  art.  1".>S'  ipianti>  ao  dt-linqncntc  dirccto,  a 
anctorisacao  do  ;:(tv«'rno  para  sc  tornar  causa  jusiiiii-ativa  dos  crimes  (pic 
pr<Nln/iram  rcsnltados  prcjniiiciacs  a  M'^nnuica  do  cstatlo.  dcvc  scr 
obr'ujatoria,  isto  c,  tal  <p"'  iniporte  a  obtdienrin  corrdaliva  on  nm:i 
ortlem. 

S«*  a  ifurtnilsiidltt  i'  t'ontra  a  lei    f'undariifiital  «!'»  cstado    on   contra 

oiitras  Icis,  clla  c   t'acidtativa.  c  comi»  ta!  nf.  >  ndcva  o  ipic  d"«'!la   nson 

dclimpn'ntc,  i)rincipal  c  o  ministropc«lcMdos4Mn  crimcdcixar  dc  a 

j;i."»S|     nsar   *maximc   ipiando   cntrc  o   t\v  cstado  nao  Lonvcr  idacocs 

hiciardiicas  <|nc  tacam  coiisiilrrar  est»*  sn|M-rior,  <*omo  sc  dcmon- 

Mr.i  por  arj^nmcnto  do  No.  L'O,  <lo  ait.  L'O  .  j-t  do  No.  ."i  .  do  art.  II.* 

*T«'ria  «iilo  «-i>ii\  I'liii'iit'-  <|ii(»  o  l.'«>il.  rc'.iilva*- ■  a<j:iclle<  a»"l4W  ile  ilcffr;!  on  do  |>n)- 
vni-a<  ;i«i  ijiu-  OS  ilcl)  ^rjiil,,,,  ;;fi'a<'«i  iln  ;;iiv<-rin».  ruii'.tidiiii.r^  «-ui  ii«"«'«->si(l.nlc.  i>iiilciii  M  T 
•>liiri';:j<lo'«  a  iiniclirar  si  ii  iln  iiic'i>iii|Mtivi'l  o  •.♦•ii  ••r<jct^liiii>-:itu  (■•iii  a  atiitoiii.ivau  (In 
•jov.-iiio  ili'tci'iiiiiiailaini'iiii'  |)aia  <•»«•>  arfi>». 

<  ►>  n<»s<i.s  ^ovcrna. lures  ilo  iiltrainar.  iiii->iii.i  i\,-  |iniviiii-ia  •-  im^tos  iiiaritinios  distaii- 
!<->  «la  <'«i.sta.  OS  foiniiiaiiilanti's  ilc  coiho^  niiiitan-^.  ■>»  ilt-  iia\  !••»  dv  '4ii<-i'r.'i,  I'tc,  podciii 
rx-iii  unlctii  f.\|ii-i-ssa  do  ^ovfi'iio  ri-|icl!ir  prla  ton;:!  'hf*  anna'*  iini  ataijiif,  oii  iiii'siiio, 
|>ara  iiianiitfiivao  ria  <li;;iiidadi'  c  iiiti'i'i-sM-n  nacioti.ir^  toiiiar  a  iiiuiutiva  dc  hostilidadcs 
ou  rt-pn^siilias.     ( Ortolan,  Uf^\.  inter.,  liv.  :'.",  r.-jp  :?>.  princ.  !:•'•'-» 

"Assiin  em  jireseiiea  do  i|ne  levainoH  dito.  a.-,  iialavraxlu  art.    Tmlo  o  iMftiiffiic: 

£:dt)]  «/««■  inir  iiiiarxiiiiir  ii<  lot  iii'io  iitirtorinailiM  r'jttio  yttrrri—t  t  r/ntz^r  o  f-tado  a  utmi  divlora- 

<»i(i  </(  t/iiirra"  poderiaiii  ser  coiiveiiieiita-iiieiitf  enit-n<!uila.«<l:z«'ijdo-M- "  Unio  o  por- 

Impm:  hi'ki  aiu  Utriiado  pvio  (jovrrno,  i{iie  por  quafn/otr  a<rl<>*  ia»/i«  ««  criutiHoiox  expozcr  u  (f- 

l*tdf  a  «M(i  ifiitrra". 

A  ;ruerra  niesina  nao  o  em  si  mai.s  (pie  inii  •v->tadii  dt»  rrpr- ■miHnt'  girar*  e  vinitiiiiiax,fni 
(|iianiu  iiV.ss*-  estado  tiido  o  que  li  permittido  a  iiiiia  lian  [Kint-s  iM-lli^fraiiU-s  ne  cousidera 
lit-ito  a  ontni.     (Selimalz,  IJroit  des  ^^eiis  enrop«-ei»s.  Hvrt-  »/*.  tap.  i'.  paj;.  'JH.) 

I."*f<»  comtiiilo  sortie  uma  limitaeao  a  r»-s|MMio  tia.'i  m»->ni*»  nav'Va*  «pie  siisteiitam  no 
e«ta4lo  de  pa/  nm  ap)»arato  Ix-llico,  tanto  em  ttrra  <>i>mo  no  nur.  f-uj<>!>  exercitoH  u  arma- 
das, coiifuudindo  ]>or  sua  attitndo  o  estadu  preveittivo  roiu  w  dtf  anieava  e  a^gretisao 
penuanent**,  compiomottcm  a  existeneia  on  iiide|>en<li-u<-ia  <lc  uutraa  uav<'N-s,  main  on 
UM'Uosdctorminadameute,  podendo  de  impruvisM  e  por  utdtriu  trxiM^idaii em  !M*<{rc<lu  veri- 
firar  urn  at.i<|ne  naval  on  nma  iavasfio. 

l:Ista.«  palavras  "deelaravao  de  jjU'Tra  "  nao  teem  hojf  a  me<ina  signifioavao  <|ne  tinli.ini 

euiontnvs  enut,  consistindo  na  intintafiio  mamtada    tazer  a  nma  uavao  em  8en 

[nCliJ  *me8Uio  tcrritoriu  por  nm  arantud'armuitou  meii»a;;i-iru.  prt-cioaraeDt'e  comu  uiu 

reptu  on  deMalio.  Kstaft'trnmsolemneeessoii  d(*s«l>-  omr^dodo^ei-ulo  17°,  e  ticouHnl*- 

Mitnida  i>elo  dt>crt>tument<)  da  gnerra  e  nna  communirav''^"  oAirijI  as  navoes  aggnuiidas, 

alliada«ou  uentras,  acoompauliada  de  mauifesttM  ou exiwAivao  de  uiotiv«MdeJuiitilicavi'u), 


COl'NTKR    (  A!^K    OK    llIK    rMlKD    SlATKH. 


50 


[ft  (inr  rt'-tnomliMii  (wroiiti-i-inanif«'!«ti>8,  iitt'  ipu'  I'lViftivuMH'iiti'  roiiipmi  ii«lii)HHIiiliitl(»M. 
'I'lHliivia  :iiii'ti>i'i-s  I'Xistt'tii  ciniio  llyiikiTtliui'k.  i|iii-  .sii^tt'iittini  i|Ut^  n<-iii  rutva  iiiiitiit'rstON 
H.i'>  iitTi'.ssarioH,  )■  iniiitiin  \«-/i-i4  dr  iiii|irii\  i.sn,  on  <lr  liDslilitlailrs  ciii  IniNtiliilatlt'H  nu 
uu^rava  )'iitri>  ii.s  nav'M's  a  sua  ^iliiai.ait  ate  a  iiiaiiiri"<tavai>  iDriiial  <li>  rstailo  ilc  ^iioriii. 
(iiii'i'iaH  Inn  liavi<l<>  svm  ]trcv  ia  tli'claraV'io:  I'oiiio  Un  a  i|iii-  ii'lx'iitnu  ciiti'i'  a  l''i'aiiv!i  << 
ii  lii;;lati-ri'a  <'iii  .hiiiliii  lie  I'ri.'i,  Miuni-iitf  ili-rlaraila  Hiilt'iniicinriilr  I'lii  Maio  ilc  I7')li;  o 
iiii»  iD'iriM  ia-, iit's  inoviilaH  nu  ITiil  miIhi-  icNliliiivao  c  iiiilciniii.saV'K)  ili^  ])rfHas  t'ltittiH 
iiiiti'K  <r<'s>a  ilt'i'laravai*  *'iili'c  arnrti-  ili-  N'l  r>ailli-H  c  a  ili>  I.oikIics,  Niistcntoii  mtu  alutrla- 
iin-iiti'  a  t'alta  •!•■  iliiciti)  a  ri-claiiiai.';')))  ciiiiiii  int'iiiiilada  |ii)i'  I'alta  ilc  rmivt'iivao  uHpouial 
I'  ili'|iciiili'iit)'  il<>  iiiii  |ii'iiiri|iiii  ill'  iliifitii  tias  j^nitrr^  Hiiji'itn  a  rmiti'starrio. 

|[:;iil  j  'As  sni'iirr/a.H  pDrriii  li'rstr  ;{i-nri'ii  tiiiiiaiiiii  I'arartri'ilr  |iiTl)ilia  r  alrivoNia.  K  ii 
•riiri'ia  iliiN)iii'itta.si'>:ilti'ai|iiii'.>>  riii  |)i)iiti)  iriaiiili-.   I'l'li/iiii'iito  Niiiillliaiitrsa;;)rri'H- 

\h"i'>  iiir.-'iM'railaH  ^Ao  linjr  |Miiirii  piiiN  aM'it  ill-  lartu  |m)|i|IIi' a  tmla  a  ;;iii'na   |iirri>iliMii 

Lviii|>ti>iiiasi>  arti>M|ii'i-|iai'ali)i  ioN  i|iir  inaiiil'i'staiii  u  rxtailu  ilr  traiisif  :'ii>i'ri)ii>tit  iiriri  riiiiio 
lima  ilii  liininiit  tiuila  i|iif  >iil»liliir  a  fithiiini'  mi  i.ritri>^ii.  ( >  ,M';>iril()  aliHiiliitu  iiao  <i 
)ii)»iM'l  niM'Mtailo  artiial  ila  iir;;aiiiNar:'iii,  rilavin'^  •'  t'ariliilaili- iliM'iiiiiiiimiirai,-i>i'S  riitru 

[;i~,  iiariiiH  iiioili-iiia.i.     tnrtiilaii,  l>i-;;l.  iiid  in.,  liv.  :!",  rap.  I'.) 

Portaiito  <>  »'I»M>H>iit()  diriiin'iitt'.  iiiliiiittido  .stMii  «'\(M'|M;riit  no  |no.s«Mite 
;irr..  iiilo  |mmU'  com  vrnhulc  iiioial  .scr  ii(linittitlo.  A  niiiliciii  oil  iiii 
iniiilriiciii  do  iiiiiii.stro  d'cstado  *|iic  aiu-toiisa  o  a«-to,  iifio  dcstioc  iit'iii  o 
|4'lciMi'iito  moral  malrtico  na  ]M-.ssoa  do  aiictori.sado,  iicm  a  it'spon.sabi- 
lidiidc  dirt'rta  qiic  Ilic  icsulta  do  aldiso  »iiif  t'cz  «lii  .«<ii:i  lilicidadc,  « 
iictividadf. 

.Mem  d*is.so,  a.s.sim  <-omo  Iriidiroii  uo  i  tin.  do  ait.  1  l">   paiticiilari.sar 

|(».s  niiiiistros  d'r.stado  i|iiaiido  lossi'iii  aiictoit's  diriM  to.s  lios  lartos  a  (|ue 

o  mcsmo  vN  s«'  rclcn'c  »'iii  ycral.  no  art.  lit.')',  os  I'liiM'cionarios  ,sii|k»- 

j.'KIl,']    ritMT.s  ipu'  oid('iia.s.>i('m  ao.s  snis  inl'criori'.s  iini  acto  criiiiimjso  •lam- 

Iti'iii  a<|iii  di'\  iaiii  cllcs  .sn-  partinilarisado.s,  tjiiaiido  simpU'smcnto 

(I  iiiictorisaxm')!!,  v  <iiH'  a.><siiii.  dando  a  oiitn'in  carta,  diploma  on  instnu!- 

(ocs  cm  |)rcJuizo  dc  iima  narao  cstiaii;L;cira  on  dc  .sens  snUditos.  fo.sscia 

(Miisa  da  jiiicrra  on  rcprcsalias. 

I'm  iiiinistro  d'cstailo  cm  similhantcs  ciicmiistancias  c  crimiiioso,  «)u 
por  tiaicfio  on  por  imprndcnyia.  c  cm  todo  o  caso  c  .scmprc  rcsponsavcl 
|ii>r  todos  (»s  ac'ios  dircctos  on  indirci-tos  d»'  pioxocacAo ;  1 '  (^)iiaiido  llio 
lalta  a  Jiisti«;a  pain  a;i-,i:icssao :  L'  (^>naiido  iifio  llic  laltaiido  a  jnstica, 
icsiiita  maior  mal  jtolitico  c  material  contra  a  iiacao  dc  rccorrcr  a 
sDitcdas  armas  :  .".  (^Miando  piovoca  dirccta  on  indircctamciitc  scm  ter 
(ic  aiitcmrio  cah'tiiado  as  t'oivas  da  rcciproca  dcl'c/.a  c  ata(|nc. 

Taiito  maior  c  a  cxtciisao  do  dirciio  politico,  que  sohrc  dcclaracfio  de 
aiicrra  a  cnita,  no  art.  7."»  ^  ".»'  concede  ao  ]M>der  cxecntivo.  seiii 
(Icpciidcncia  de  delii)cracao  das  camaias  ic^^islativas,  (|nanto  maior  e 
iiiiiis  csi>ecial  deve  sera  rcpr«'ssaolcyal  contra os  ministros  d\'stado, <pio 
aiictorisarem  jiela  jnovocacao  as  rcprcsalias  e  em  .sen  .se^nimento  »'ii- 
\i)Iverem  |>or  tal  forma  a  iiacao  em  immensos  sacriticios.  ditlicnldadcs  e 

l)eri;;'os. 
;•'><»>]  *IV)rtaiito,  se  o  pre.seiite  art.  toiiia  como  circiimstancia  diri- 
meiitc  e  em  terinos  ab.soliitos  a  aiu'torisacao  do  }»-overiio,  para  a 
|tro\oca<;rio  a  ;j;neira  on  rcprcsalias.  a  Jnstica  «'  a  politica  pediam  «|iie  o 
((ul.,  iiicriminas.sc  o  facto  (la  auctorisa(;aoem  si  mesmo,  qiiando  abnsiva 
jxM  inaleHca  on  ciilposa  4'ontra  os  meiiibros  do  j»abiiiete  que  d'ella  par- 
licipassem  coiiio  auctores  on  cunipliccs. 

Se  OS  crimes  que  os  ministros  de  estado  pod«'m  commetter  no  cxor- 
I  icio  de  siias  fuiiecoes  tr-em  iiina  iiatureza  especial  que  deva  .scr  estudada 
e  tratada  para  uuia  lei  particular,  cumpria  entao  eliiniiia-los  completa- 
inoiite  *\o  cod.  e  iiao  os  compreliender,  ja  por  detormi iiacao  especial, 
cnino  se  fez  no  cit.  §  un,  do  art.  14.'i"  ja  como  a  cada  passo  por  deter- 
niiiia^'oes  geraes  absohitas  "/»(/<>  o  portmjttez,  todo  o/unccionario  puhlkd''' 
soni  resalva  algunia  dos  iiiesinos  ministros,  o  «jue  inuitas  vezes,  coiuo 
vereiiios.  Hies  torna  o  j-od.  de  irri.soria,  absurda  on  impossivel  appli- 
('aijao. 


Kil 


(;(> 

|;;(;-}; 


Tj;f..    "V    of    \VAS||1N(;T(»X — J-A{T.i;s    .''COMrANYlXU 


•Art.  l.'itl.    <j>ii;ii<ni('r  possoa,  <j\io  sem  imctoi'isarrio  «l<»  jjovti 
ho  i(M-iii!iir  oa  li/,«'r  icci-ntiU'.  assitliiriiir  oa  W/x-v  assjilaiiar  }^(mi;i 
para  <ii  si'i'.  ii;o  inilifar  on  uiaritiiao  estian.'i^cii'i*.  <»ii  prociirar  aiinas  u- 
rnibancarocs  ou  inunirocs  para  o  mcsiiio  lim.  s«Ma  ('oiKltMiiiiado  no  max 
iiM)  <]a  ptis.lo  CO) KM-cjoiial,  <■  no  'uaxithx  da  initlta. 

s^  iiniro.  >*'  o  t;  iniiiniso  lor  csniujicii'o,  sciii  ('\i»iil.s(»  t('iiiporariaiu(Mi'( 
kst<'  ait.  piin'fu  scr  tirailo,  (pianto  a  ivdacrao.  do  art.  L*L"' do  i'ml 
!V-ri.  Vi. : 

S^TiMi:  |iiiii!t  i',f  iiK'it  <i'iix  (|iu  ;iiiic(ii;  1<'\''  ou  I'iiit  l<"vcr  <lc>i  ;rimj>fs  arim't's.  ci.^n;:! 
oil  eiiruN',  litit  i'ii;4ii;{iT  nil  fiiioli'i'  <Ii'h  siildaJs,  oil  li-iir  iiiiiitiit  luiirnis  on  pojc;!!'-  .ii> 
s«riii»-«  101  Tiutiiitioiis  sjiii-*  (iidif  nil  aiijnri'^at  ion  dii  yom  tTiii'iiK-iit. 

IVla  rollocai-ao  quo  ali  tern  rsii*  art.  c  fora  d<'  diivida  (pn'  soMicntc  »■ 
Jipfilicav*')  ao  ('usotMn  <pi«'  se  ir.ovar,  (\i\v  ox  rcfnitaiut'iitos  tinliaiii  poi 
tiiii  jMTtiiUai  a  s»»^iuani;.i  iiitci'ua  do  ]iai/.  'Miilnii.a!  di-  cassai-ao  i|i' 
Talis,  poi  accord.io  dc  l.i  dr  l\  vcit'iio  dc  ISi'.;,  dcridiii  (jim'  vs{.[  prov;; 
••ra  iuutii,  *'  (jiic  no  sil»'ncii>  «la  lei  sc  dcvia  «'on.sidt'iai'  .viaMMitc  o  laetii 
iiiatci'ial.  com  alisdafcuo  do  m-u  tiai. 

-Mas  < 'iiaii\raii  •■   'Idif,   I'liiorii'  thi  Cod.   !*<n..  rap.   IS.  dcnionstiaiii 

I'UO  fsta  floiitriita  «•  intt'iramt'titc  ( stnrr.iria  .1  lei.  »•  ijnc  iicm  o  Icoisladm 

}»odia   ter  a   iiitcnc'io  dc  iV-rir  com   a    pi-iia   dc   iiioitc  a'lcnfadir. 

j  J(mJ     *dc  outja  iiatin'c/.i 


Traraiidos«-  dc  rccruranicnfit  |t;iia  um  pai/  cstranocjio  nao  --r 


]»odcria  jUNlitic;'!'  sinnliiaiilc  p'lia.  INi*-  tacto  iiAo  c  fijnnnoso  cm  si 
JiH'jitau.  uia>  somcntc  ijiiando  oi  o  tim  nao  c  lioncsto,  on  sc  <la  \  iolacao  d;is 
U'ls  dc  p<»lii  i;i  dc  oidciii  oil  il*'  ,oii\ cnicucta  jaddica.  K  o  cy;()ismo  d,i 
pi'optia  cousci  vaci'io,  d«'i\aMdo  os  pallidas  011  as  potcncias  lu'lli^icranti's 
t-Mtri'jLrnt  a  >i  iiicsmas,  (pianilo  um  au.\ilio  d'csta  naluic/.a  podcria  ou 
sal\a  la>  on  4lai-  a  "Ucna  uma  sohicao  mais  rapida  c  mais  Itonrosa. 


i) 


nosso 


ponin  apro\  -itou  a  nicnminacao  nao  so  apphcando  ;i 


d< 


;ios  iccrutamcntos  para  sci'\ico  militai'  cstran;;ciro,  mas  tambcm  ai!i|»li 
siiifloa  ao  SCI-.  l.;o  maiitimo  militar  c  nao  mllitar  <'on\oitcM  ilo  assim  cm 
delicto  o  <iiK' csscnrialmcutc  tiaiM'  mais.  «pu' uma  simples  inlVaccao.  0 
«pic  c  ilhcito  inoralmcnlc,  nai*  poik*-  loruar  sc  licito  jicla  anciorisacao  dc 
itcidunii  ;.:o\cino,  a  <|Ual  >o  vccac  solu<'  t'actos  movalmcn.c  licitos.  Sea 
viola<a<t  coiisistc  cni-io  somcntc  11a  pictcricao  d'csta  solcmnidadc,  a  in- 
trac«;."io  assuiiu- 0  caiactcr  dc  c(tiiti"avciicao  mais  ou  mcnos  oi-,(V(.,  juas 
iiuiira  dcvcii.j  passar  ;i  catc^oiia  dc  ciimr. 

So  iiH'siira  scniido,  mas  com  uma  rclacruMlirccta  it  todo  c   ijualqucr 
liiu,  «(>ic  loia  dc  am  caso  in\t;cn!c  n-V»  lossc  para  rcjudlif  o  pcii^io  immi 
'tcnic  la  patria  atac  ida.  pcla  ;^uciia  ii;lciior  ou  exterior,  t'oi  adop 
(.'.»<»<•!    lada.  ho  cod.  «lc   1.  !7.  a  imi  imimn-iio  do   ^■od.   l"i.  c  ddiuixo  d;i 
mcsm.!  peua  dc  n,(Mt»', 

I'foitiltia  jioi/'  tandtciii  esse  cod.  implicitaucnt*'  os  recnitaM'.cntos  (i;i 
sUistamcnJos  )»arau  scrvi'.;«)cstran;;tMni,  nuis  asH-ioiisava  todos  osestor<;(t> 
iiidividuaes  dcsta  natu(<'/a,  cu  caso  ui;i('ntc  dedclc/a  interna  ou  «'\ternii. 

O  (  i»d.  I'cn.  do  ISra/d  c  omisso  e  Ui'io  o  ccnsir.amos  ])or  isso,  Mu' itou- 
Ke  .t  iiicrimiiiar  ;:('rahiu'ntc.  no  art,  T.'S  ,  o  fio-to  dc  hostilidades,  contia 
Hiiltditos  dc  o'ltia  Macao  por  modo  tal  (luc  sc  compromvtla  a  pa/  on  si- 
|)i'«ri'oi|iiem  vcpT'.  salias. 

()  '.\n\.  Ilc^p.  art.  IIJ  N(».  <>  so  pmiiu.  <lchaixo  de  jM-na  dc  icrios 
;it«'  ao  maximo  d«'  nnuie.  o  ipic  recru.lassc  em  l!<spanlta  paia  o  servin> 
dun  ttimifs  ih'  liina  jtotviuia  iniinitnt.  \\  porcm  omisso  tamlicm  iia  li.V|»<»- 
1.|je«c  lU'  «pu!  t»atu  cstci  iio.sso  aul. 

CaiH-ordam  jiori'm  cm  andtas  as  liypotlu'ses.  {\\u^  tttdavia  disliii;;u«'m 
on  J'od.  da  hardcnlia,  art.  l^l  ,  c  o  das  l>uas  Sicilius,  art  !(!!>. 

t>  da  .Saidcaha,  iia  primeira  li\  pothcsc,  impoc  n  pcna  tcmporaria  *!• 


n'l'lusao 

-luidii.  ; 

0  das 

\\< 

KITI 

I  niiiio  dc 
I  (ic  ilois  a 

Ci'lili    M' 
liili'miili 

(h    >(-1  ill  HKI  I 

SoS  Oh 

I'oiisiilera 
assim  col 
iiriia  no 
rinalni 
(iiuicia  CI 
Mrnjllnuit 
IMCilo  rec 

Ccllli   l|ll 

<'l  |iiiiii,  <'<> 

Ksta  ol 
(Ic  cstado 
t|iic  da  in 

^'U 

;i)i.sj    da* 

art 

tiijiie   um 

ilcrcito  ci 

o  cud.  sc  ] 

Todaxii 
ims.No  ait. 
vista  do  <| 

(^Mianto 
(If  (|uc  sc 
rniuo  a  d< 
Uyj,:\v  scm 
sc  iissold; 
1  liiovcl  I 
.sc'(|iiestra 
c  toitc. 

ruda\  ii 
(Ic  (|ue  sc 
■>cii  aiU'tt 
lihcrdadc, 
('\cita  as  s 
•ctestam  ; 
;iiisoIuiisri 
•I  iitopriei 
Imrrot.  ip 
'III  ycir-'io 

I'oi.S  (;u 

I'llc  com 
liltcrdadc 

i'osto  if 


(  OlNTKi:    CASK      )F    TIIK    IMIKI*    STATKS. 


61- 


irrliisiio  ;i   traballtD.s   l\tiv:uloi<.  coiil'on'iu'   ;i.s  cinuinstjiiicias.  «•  iia  ^se- 
Miiiitl:i.  a  <'«'  inort*'. 
()  (las  Diias  Sirilias  iinp'-x'  tatnlxMii  n'rsta  ultima  liypotlic^^*'  a  pfiia  <1«' 

iiiortc,  mas  iia  «l<>  iiosso  art.  a  pciia  .Ic  t'xilio  tt'm|>i!'.ari<>. 
KIT         \o  iiKxltTiK)  cod.  »la  l!a\  H'lji.  art.  .'>0(J'.  N<).  I  ,  sf  'ailia  luna  <li.s- 
posirao  rm   parte   v  snl>staii(  ialmciitr   (MHicordantr,   rlassilicada 
(•(lino  (Ic  criiiH'  dt'  trairao  no  tpiar'n  ^vah  <•  portaiito  piiiiida  com  a  jiciia 
(If  dots  a  oito  aiiuos  dc  prisfio: 

Ci'liii  i|"'  '■"•'•"•Icrn  sccri'tt'iiiiMit  tics  Hiijcfs  ilu  rdsaiinic  ;mi  M-rvic*'  irum'  itu\**anrv  M- 

liilirdilti-  ilrmi'iht  mi  iiii't  jui'trni  <iii1f  it  anyixldini  ,)  mi  rrmi'i  iir  mm  iiiiforl"!'  in>iii'Vii>'<  iiliini 

(I,    »t;.i  llrSIKUI-l. 

Nos  otitros  cod.  (la  Allciiiaiilia.  com  idacrio  ao  critiic  dc  traicao,  .sao 
fitiisiilentilos  I'  puniilns  initm  ftt-iis  actus   prcparatoj  ios  o.s  ici-rntaiiicnto.s 
iissiiii  como  as  compras  dcaii'ias  c  dc  miiiiicoo.     A  ut«-suia  douiriiia  .se 
ailia  no  cod.  da  rru.ssia  ^  (it'. 

riiialmcntc  no  cod.  da  Austria,  art.  77  .  tamlw-m   si^  ciictuitra   ccncor 
(iiUicia  com  csic  nosso  art.,  mas  ••  .so  para  rcmct  tcr  para  a  lei  militai  <;ma 
>iniilhant('  iiu'riininacfu)  c  i)orlaiito  rcstticta  a<»  cstado  da  ;;iicrra  com  a 
iiiicao  rccrutantc. 

Ci'lni  i|ni  enroll'  <!'•>.  Iinnitiii-s  |M>iir  tin  sfi'vicc  militairc  t'trniiy;('r     .       ;       .       i-s(  ]\\^f- 
t'l  |iiiiii,  I'liiitoriiK-iiii'itT  aii\  loi^  iiiiiitairi-K,  |i;)r  !•'  |i<iii\i>ii  iiii'itiiiii-. 

K.sta  obscrvacao  tbi  I'cita  por  ('aml)accrcs  nas  di.scii.ssrM's  do  con.seU..» 

dc  cstado  sobi'c  «» Cod,  Ten.  l-'r.     roillic  porcm  icspondido  poiM.  IScrlicr, 

(pic  da  inst'rcilo  no  cod.  nao  rcsidta\u  inc(tn\cnietitc.     Mas  cntao  i. dar- 

jju*.'  o  cit.  Chauvcau  ct    llcli<''.  «\ssu  incrimina(;rio  ticon  .scm  utili- 

;i(».S]    dadc:  p<t!)pu*  lcs(b' (pu' sc  rc<'onrc<'('  (pic  *os  factos  pic\  jsto.s  no 

art.  sac  fj.\ctos  militarcs.  naosc  v<>  motivoal^'um  liindad<Mpic  Justi- 

li(iiic   uma    i>xccp(;ao  para    que  c.-sta  disposicao  lomc  lo^ar  cntrc  as  dc 

ilcrcito  c!  iiiunal  comman.     V.  uma  dcro<>acao  ii  ordcin  da^  matcrias  <pie 

o  ciid.  sc  i»ropo/.  scijuir. 

Todavia,  sc  nai>  Ibrcm  militarcs  os  culpados  do  ciimc  prcvisto  n  cstc 
iKis.so  art.,  nfio  podciao  sci'  jnlnados  pclos  nossos  tiibiniacs  militarcs  em 
vista  do  (pic  disp('M>  (>sic  no.>so  cod.  no  art.  Hi  . 

(^>uanto  a  pcmlidadc.  rcc(Milicccm(*s  (pic  clla  c  approprnnla  aos  di'li<'tos 
(Ic (|iic  sc  trata  iTcstc  art.  tanto  pclo (pic  rcspcita  a  dc  laisaocorrcccional, 
coiho  a  dc  mnlta.  \\  uni  d(i>  poucos  ca.sos  cm  (pic  a  pcna  pcciiniaria  tcm 
Ic^ar  sciii  vicio  dc  conlisc.i.  .Sc;ii  mcios  pcciiniai:o>  hTk*  .>«•  ifciuta,  n.lo 
sc  ass(tldada.  nai»  .sc  assalaria  nciii  sc  la/  assalariar.  < )  dinliciro  c  a<pii 
I  iiiovcl  principal,  o  iiiNtrtimctito  do  delicto.  A  nianciia  iiiditt>cta  lic  o 
>''i|ai>stiar  e  em  liaritturiia  com  o  art.  Nl  do  cod.,  ccitametitc  uma  multa 
(■  tortc. 

I'ddaxia  o  attentad(  node  scr  mais  on  nieiios  mraxc.  as  circiimslancias 
<l('  (|Uc  se  ache  rc\ cstid**  (ics(  iili»ar  ou  nao.  e  mais  on  meiios  a  inteneaodo 
M-n  aiictor.  K'ccrular  «'m  |»ais  cstran;;('iro  para  levantar  o  ;,'ntu  da 
lilicnladc,  da  indepcndcncia  on  da  Ic^itimidadc.  "  nm  |>roceditncnto  <pi(> 
cxcita  as  sympatliias  de  urn  publico  ilhistrado,  e  dc  lodos  o.s  liomcns(pie 
ictcstama  lyrannia.a  injusti(;a,  ii  iisurpacao.  IJccrutar  para  rc.st«»raro 
alisolui'smo.  adjudar  uma  coinpiista.  restabclcccr  a  impiisicao.  destniir 
ii  ptopiicdade  on  o  credito  d(>  uma  na«;rio.  e  nm  attendad(»  (pic  cxcitii 
liorror,  «|iuMletcstam  todos  os  (pu*  prc/.ain  a  ordcin,  a  paz  v.  a  lclicida«lc 
lilt  iLicn-'ro  lium.Mio. 

I'ois  (;uc.'  ih'M^  incrirunaise  o  soccorro  p(utal  mcio  a  tiiiia  nacau(pii' 
aiii"°uctn  B  '"'*'  *'<*">    tbivas  dcsioiiaes  ])ara    niantiT  a  sua  inilc{>cnd(Micia  ou  a  .sua 
MMTiladc  on  a  Icjfitiinidadc  dc  nm  jaincipc  .' 

I'osto  isto.  a  |tciuilidi  dc  coiiiiniiiada  scmpn'  no  sen  niaxiiiio  .sc  torua 


4- 


'"^ 


4 


m 


p^f 


::'  i 


62 


TKKATV    OF    WASniN(JTON PAPERH    ACCOMrANYlNCi 


vi<'i(»sii,  por  isso  ([lU'  assitn  so  tonia  iiidivisivol.  Nocossariaincnte  daj 
lo^ar  a  luniirse  com  (Iciiiasiado  ri^^or,  tanto  a  cMHitraveiirao  (|U0,  tiiibj 
urn  tiiii  iioIm'c  c  ^'ciieruso,  (uiiiio  a  (|U<'  tiiilianin  fiia  i^iiobk'e  aluuniiiavcl 
Alom  «lisso,  mil  rccnitaiiiciito  <m  alistaiiu'iito  i)ai()  o  si*rvi«;()  inaritiinnj 
iiao  V  fill  si  iiu'siiK)  tao  iiii|>oi  taiit<',  (huiio  para  <>  scrvii/o  militar  on  naval 
dc  unia  narao  ostranj^oiia.  A  liUonladc!  do  eoinnicrcio  rociproco,  que! 
tanto  rtnivt'in  «'  sr  di'vc  favoicciT  t'litiv  as  naroes,  desculpa  semprciij 
violarwo  d(>  Ulna  tonnalidadc  dc  aiictorisacjao. 

Km  espcciilarocs  inon^antis.  coin  dcpcndcncia  dc  viajjens  dc  mar,  nini 
dia,  uiiiii  liora  <lc  tardaiica  poileiiialo^-rar  um  bom  nc^ocio, tornar  ruinosn 

oil  inutilisar  uina  <)pci'acao  dc  commcrcio  (|iic  ali;is  scria  cxcol 
[.'{7(tj    Iciitc  sc    fosse    coiidii/.ida  a   tempo.     (>  *sct(rcdo  iiicsiik*,  (|U(m 

mnitas  vczcs  prciso  }iuar<lar.  (>  sf^icdo  (pic  »'•  a  alma  c  a  vitliij 
dc  similliaiitcs  jMiipiczas,  n'pu;,'iia  a  <pic  sf  torncm  scnsivcis  pcia  dcinoi;! 
<los  actos   jncparatorios,  jtara   a   (pial  concorr«'iia  Ibrcosamciitc  a  iic 
ccssidadc  dc  iiina  auctorisacao  do  };ovcrno  <'in  casos  tacs.* 

■•)Sr.  I,('\i  V  <'iit<'ii(l('.  (iiic  <'st>'  art.  sc  dcvc  ciifcmltT  do  scrv  i'd  r/r  _r/»('»TCf ;  o  fdtiiii 
|iiii  t'liiiihiiiii'iiti)  <|iii'  (I  ctiiiliariii  sfii.-t  iiiii  iilisiirdo  dt-  tal  urdnii  ijiitt  wiut  <■  |iiissivilj 
Niippor  (|in'  (1  li-;;islii(lor  ()  <|iii/i-.ssc  s!iiicci(<iifr.  i'tirt'iii,  >al\  .>  i>  rcsiicilo  <•  ini'it'cido  loiivn: 
(;if  II  iliiilaiiiii>  ao  jovcii  JiiiiMoiisiiltii,  iiao  sciimv  nit"  /"(/(((/(ciifm  no  coiiti'Xto  do  art. 
nixi'ui  concliidnitf  jiara  n-sti  i)i;;ii'  a  sua  di.M|Kisii;ai).  I']iiilioi'a  clla  si-ja  iiiiia  aluTiavAo  i!r 
tiido  )|iiaiit(i  SI-  ai'lia  ]«';^i.slad(>  fin  oiitio.s  cud.  a  siiMilliaiitc  rcspcito,  (-oiiio  .soiiifiiti-  aijiii 
H*'  iiii'i  iiMiiia  lima  roiitravi-nrfio.  co  l<-<;isladur  podia  ttT  fir,  vista  a  necf.-i.'sidaiif  dr 
iiiuriidia<;i-iii  tanto  para  o.s  nos.sos  na*.  ios  (!<•  jfiicrra,  <'onio  nKTcaiitcH  iiacionacs,    nud 

I'fpntaniosa  disposirao  lao  al>sni(la  como  part-cc  a  priincira  vista.  Ali-ni  ttt-  i|iu'()ii- 
[ICl]  ciiilairfntodc  niarinlia;;('ni  incnantr  (|naiido  nacional  "n.'io  itrfjudica  o  ifcriit:i- 

i:'i-iit<-  d'ldla  para  o  sitv  ii,'<i  da  ariiiada,  antes  c  para  clla  iiiii  vi  vciro  ntil.  I'l.'i  <|iiauti' 
ijuc  o  rt-riutaiiiriito  da  iiiai'inlia<;*'iii  para  a  inariidia  inrrcantr  i'stran<>;t'ira  <'  imii  incio  di- 
Militraliir  ao  scrviro  naoonal.  1^  tanto  inais  i>to  assiiu  proccdc,  nti  vista  do  ri'>riilaiiicntii 
d«'  W  d«'  .\;f(ist(i  (]f  l"^!!".!,  uidiMiaiido  no  art.  Ill"  dtt  caii.  '•'•"  <|iit'  os  innios  iiirrt'aidi's  scjaiii 
»'sriiij>nlo«.aini'nlf  v  i>itados  para  "inc  iiao  h  rrin  iinti  iiihiirns  /)(((7»7i«i  s  .s(/;»  iiirmhuc.f 
i|iM',  no  caso  dt"  Sc  cin'ontrai'i'iii,  o  capilAn  do  porto  os  cntir;;!!"'  loj^o  cm  fiistodia  iid 
<Mi<'arri>;;ado  df  policia,  i\  litn  dc  na  priiiH'iia  occasiao  os  it'incttrr  para  o  arsenal  d.i 
iiiai'inlia.  paru  scrcin  finlian-adosnos  iia\  ios  da  corua.tM-ncanc^ando.  ciiiart.  addicioiial. 
o  nicMiio  capitao  dc  ta/iT  todas  a.s  dili;;cnt'ias  (lossivcis  para  tcr  scni|ii'c  nin  mappa  di- 
todos  OS  ntai  iidn'ii'OH,  com  (/((7((r((v""  <'"  I'loniro  cum  qui    -(    iioii   miliar  purit  o  sirrirn  iln 


iiftti. 


nil  a  coinpi'clicncao  do  sciviro  riiaiitiiiio  (>straii<;i'ii'(>,  <'orii  (|iianl(>  nao  nn 


litar. 


MH    ijrriil    moriliiiii'.  podi'  scni    o    tij;iiiado  absiii'ito   coiisidcrar-sc    cxistir   nas  palavr: 


s(|^l^i^<•    itiililitr  OH    iiKiritiiiio    fhii.Kjn 


pi'incipaliiH  rii>    porijiic  por  cstc  iiioilu 


[t^T'J]  Ilea  a  7ii//(i  (/(   iiiiiliiriiiiriin  iniiiiniiiada  'aipii  cm  rcla'.'i"  ao  (■(■  rii/di/^',  como  tiini 
iKis.  \^\>  1"  c  "J"  aiiicccdciilcs  a    icspcito  dos   rcciniadov  on  acataiitcs,  com  dcsi;; 


por  iiicUior  dill 


iiacao  cxpicssa  dos  n.iv  ms  nn  riiiiih  >•. 

Km  todo  o  c.iso  raconlicccnios  (pic  a  rcdccc.m  n.i<>  c  Ima.  mas  tt 
cai'  a  lei,  para  ipic  sc  rct'oiinc,  mmc  lanvar  iii,V>  do  iiliiiiio  dos  rcciii sos,  o  aiaiiinciiio  pn; 
iilisiii'du,  para  ipic  a  sua  di'-poMvao  littcral  si    nciilralis<-.      hura  lc\.  scd   lex. 

A 'Him.  aiijtla  por  csla  coiisidcracriu  .sc  a;;;ii;iva  n  \icio  da  p<'nalidaiii'. 
Natl  .so  \fiu  a  scr  piinidos  com  a  incsma  pi-ii;i  I'actos  divcrsos  cm  jLTravi 
dad«' pcla  iiit('in;ao,  ma.s  lactos  divcisos  cm  ;:,ra\  iiladc  por  sua  iii('."«iii.i 
natnrc/a. 

Ksta  incriiniii.icrio  tciii  o  .s(>ii  t'lindainciito  nas  doiitriiias<lc  W'ollioc  <l>' 
Vattrl.  iii\  ocadas  pclo  «i(»\('i  no  aiiici  irano  cii  1  T'.t'i.  no  <'omcro  da  ;iucira 
ciiropca  c  iiicorporadas  cm  iiina  lei  do  conjAifs.so  publicada  cm  IT'.H 
rc\  ista  »•  rcstaludccida  cm  ISIS. 

Por  csta  lei  c  iim  tldicto  nao  sn  aii^iincntar  a  torca  dc  iim  norio  ihfiiinri; 
dc  pai/.  nao  iiiimt;;'o,  incparai    iima  cxpcdicao  mditar  contra  esse  pai/. 
eoniotambcm  as.salariar  on  recrutar  piira  nm  ser\  icocstran^'ciro  lU'  t<'ira| 
on  dc  mar. 

ICste  cxcinplo  da  America  (bi   bem  dcprcssti  .sc;;iiido  pela  (Iran  I'-ir 
taiitia  no  act  o  do  |iailanicnto,  oO'  Cb'O.  Ill,  cap.  oU  ,  intitulado,  '-Acto  ]mi:i  | 
inipedir  o  alistamento  on  rccrutamento"  dt»H  siibditos  de  S.  M.  para  scr 


COUNTER    CASK    OF    TUF,    I'NITKP    STATES. 


63 


vi(;o  estraii};«'iroou  o  armainciito  e  of|uipiiiiu'nt(»  iios  (loiiiinicis  tie 
i;}7;»J    S.  M.  iriuiia  iutt'iiraodt!  *jjfiu'rra  som  iicrmissao  (1«'  S,  M. 

A  razao  fiuulainental  cm  <|U(^  sc  liriiiam  N'attcl  e  NVoKio  para  ron- 
(IciMiiar  OS  recriitaiiH'iitos  scin  auctorisarao  do  j^ovcnio,  «'•  (luc  ostes  sao 
iiiiii 


I  ju'croyativa  cxclusiva  da  soboiaiiia  <jnt>  iiiii;riu'in,  scin  ptM-ini 


ssao 


ox|>i('ssa,  po(U»  IcjiitimannMite  cxtTccr  ciii   tcnitorici  »U>   oiitro  «'sta«lo. 

Mas  tixlas  as  ]»i«'ro<«ativas  <la  sohcrania  tt'-cm  os  sriis  jnst»)s  liinitcs 
«'  tcriiios,  iiao  xao  a  niais  lu'iii  a  inciiosilo  (pu'c  prociso  para  se  constMptir 
otiiii  social.  So  o  rccrutainciito  iia<»  prcjiulu-a  o  scrvici*  inilitar  iictn  suh- 
stralic  OS  ircrutados  ao  triluito,  <iito  dc  san^iiic,  para  com  o  sen  pai/.,  cm 
que  sc  oH'cihIc  a  i)rcro^ativa  *. 

No  iicto  coi.stiluciotial  fc(h'rativo  da  Allcmaiilia,  assi^niadocm  N'iciina 
cm  S  di'  .liiiilio  dc  lSir».  r  coiiccdido  no.  art.  is"  aus  siilxlitos  dos  cstados 
coiilcdcrados  ''ciitrar  no  scrvico  civil  oii  militai'  (Ic  «|iial(picr  d'cssc  *  s- 
tiidos,  comtanto  porcm,  que  o  cxcrcicio  tTcssc  diicito  nao  prciu<li<|nc  a 
(»l)ri,!;iica(»  do  ,st'rvi«;o  militar  ipic  llics  impoc  a  sua  patria." 

()s  Aiiu'ricanos  acrcsccntavam,  invocando  cm  lavoi'  da  smi  nciitrali- 
(liidc  altsoluta,  os  piiucipios  d(;  dii'cito  natural,  <pic  assim  coino  um 
lioiiicni  sc  dcvia  jul;;ar  cm  p;i/  c(un  outr«>  liomcm.  cm  quanto  cst«'  o  nao 

ajiyrcdia.o  m»'smo  S4*  «lcvia  dizcr  dc  niicrio  a  inicaiK 
\'Mi\  *.Mas  csta  ai-jiumcntacao  tamln'ni  nao  coihc.  po'.qnc  sc  c(dlicsso 
para  o  caso,  ticava  scnd«i  talso  (»  dircito  natural  )|uc  nfio  sti  nTio 
iiicrimiiia  tanto  a  dcfc/ii  pcssoal.  como  a  dc  outra  peseta:  prtn<-ipio 
ihlctplado  n'cstc  nosso  Cot!  art.  1  1'.  Ntt.  .1  c  outios  :irt.  rtincoidantcs; 
mas  muito  pcio  contrario  condcmna  cnmo  imniuiiil  o  tado  d'atpicllc  que 
pivscncia  dc  bracos  cruzados  a  liita  dc  um  com  outro  Inuucm  c  a  mortc 
((II  tci'imcntos  ::ras«'S  ('■:■   im  d'cllcs  scm  llic  acmlii'  podcndo. 

Nada  d'isto  poicm  ii'iuh  ■.♦•r  applicacao  ao  scrvico  niaiitimo  mcrcantc 
('III  tempo  dc  pa/.,  c.u  que  naoc  dc  prcsamir  a  simuiacao  o  tVaiidc  cm  favor 
(iii  ^iicrra.  lanconrlu'^ao  puis  csta  inci  iminacao  comprclicndc  lactosdc 
(liveisa  j;ravidade  c  naturc/.a  qiu-  convcria  disciiminar  v  punir  divcisa- 
iiientc  sc;iundo  a  qualidadc  «lo  dt'licto.  como  «'ra  dc  jnstica,  a  {{iw  rcsiste 
a  tlis|)osicao  p(Mial  do  art. cm  ra/fio  do  maximo  cm  que  para  tod(»s  c  tixada. 

(,>iianto  a  nntdilicacao  i\\u'  .sc  cncontra  no  ^^  un.  considciamo.N  adctpni- 
(laesta  solucao  do  l.';;isladoi'.  (j>uand(»  o  n'crutantc  c  unt  cstranv:ciro.  c 
scin  vistas  al^jjumas  liostis  contra  nos.a  cxpulsao  do  rcino  i-  «>  proccdi- 
ineiito  (MM'  mais  convcm. 


li  nao  tem  a<pii  csta  pcnalnladc  o  dcit  Hd  das  antccedcntcs.  ponpic 
scikIo  iinposta  .i  tcmi»oraria.  scm  alumu  outra  dcclaiaiao.  dcvcm  os  cs- 
ti;ui;^«iros  scr  cxpuls(».>  por  tempo  que  nao  c\ced«'ndo  o  nmxinin  df  i\o/.o 
iiiinos.  pixlc  s.';.tnndo  as  circunistancias.  rcdu/ii-  sr  ate  tr«*s  anno^.  c«»n- 
l(Miiie  o  art.  ■">(», 


•r-fii 


•[T 


iiiii'.hit  um 


coin:  AMI  COM.MIINI  Al;ll>. 

Thiol  ij  of'  iiitiriitiliniinl  rit/lit,  <iitith'(<l  to  (In   I'nitiKjinsf  /umil  stntutv,  com- 
jKiitil  irilli  tlic  llr'i'JIittH  sliitiilr,  (III  iiiitioiml  lmr>i.  Ihi  ."tittiitts  timl  crim- 
inal lau's  of  ancient  and  luofli  rn  nations,  /ircMrntnt  to  l.'is  Iinittrial  Maj- 
I'sli/   Ihiin  Pciiro  II.  I!niiicri>r  nC  Itrazil.  In/  /'.  ,1     /'.    />//  Silrn  Vcrrau. 
Vol.  I  V.  ( lAsbon,  ls.-,7,;  />/».  isj.  J.ll. 

Aktule  1  is.  If  any  I'ortnj^ucsc  snl»)«'ct  shall,  l».v  any  acis  wliatso- 
t'Vcr  not  authorized  l»y  the  ;rovcrnmcnt.  expose  (lie  st  itc  t*»  a  dcclara- 
'itMi  of  war.  (»r  expose  |*ortii;:n*'sc  sul»jc<'!s  t(t  rcpnsals  from  any 
ttirei;!,n   powtM",  saul  otlcmlcr  -^liall    he  ciHiucnnM'd  tc   temporary  bam- 


'1?^ 


(M 


rifKATV    OK    WASIIIM/ION I'AI'KIJS    A((  ( )MI'AN  VIN(; 


isliiiu'iit,  if  siicli  war  or  siicli  n'idisiilsbccanicd  into  rth'ct  ;  ami  it' siicli 
war  or  siicIi  iTprisals  Iir  not  canit'tl  jiiti>  rfVi-cr.  In*  sliall  he  (•(Hi(U'iiiiit'il 
to  corrrctioiial  iiii|M'isoiiin*Mit  tor  a  tcitii  not  to  \n'  less  than  out',  yt'ar  and 
not  to  I'xccctI  tlircc  ycais,  witlioiit  <'xi't'|>tin;;'  any  I'uitlicr  pnnislinuMit 
wliicli  saiil  otltMidcr  may  incnr,  if  tlir  acts  he  has  coniniittt'tl  Ik*  a  criiiic 
|>nnish('(l  nioif  scvcicly  I>y  law.  ( Art.  l.'I»,  No.  }.  iSic. ;  Art.  .'51),  No.  t. 
v^c. :  ( 'onstitntional  Charter,  Art.!),  i  2.) 

The  h'ttt'r  an<l  piovisions  of  this  artirlc  concnr  with  articles  S| 
j.'iTd!    and  S,")  of  the   l-'icnch  statute  :  with  article  IIS  *'of  the  Spanish 

statute;  with  article  7.»ofthe  I'.ra/ilian  statute  ;  with  articles  117 
anil  lis  of  tin'  statute  of  the  Two  Sicilies;  with  articles  17!)  ami  ISDof 
the  Sardinian  statute  ;  and  with  article  1 1'l  of  our  statute  ol  IS.JT.  Jliit 
they  dilVer  in  one  point  Ironi  the  l''reneh  statute,  and  from  those  of  the 
Two  Sicilies  ami  of  .Sardinia  which  ha\«'  heen  copied  tlier«'on.  Said 
.statutes  inakeaditl'erence  in  the  indictment  when  pea<'e  has  heen  actuallv 
('ndan;;ei'ed,  and  when  there  has  oidy  heen  a  pro\(»cation  to  n.'prisals. 

TIm'  Ura/ilian  statute,  ours  of  is;>7,  and  th<^  S[>anish  statute,  have 
<'onsidered  both  cases  as  liein;;'  om*  sin;;lc  olfeiise.  Tlui  provisions  oi 
the  ;ilu>ve-nn'nt  ioiM'd  article  are  to  tlu' sann^  etVect.  IJut  wu  do  in)t  think 
that  there  he  sutlicieni  reasons  for  such  provisit>ns,  and  we  eonsid«'r  that 
the  I'reneh  statute,  jind  those  which  ha\e  been  copied  thereon,  have 
taken  a  more  proper  vIjmv  of  the  (pnvstion.  If,  umler  the  provisions  ol 
said  arti<-le,  a  material  fact  <'an<u>t  assuin<>a  ciindnal  character  iiidessi; 
be  eventually  followed  by  «'vil  results,  the  severity  of  piiinslinnMit  is  to 
be  measured  on  the  ;iravity  of  the  consequences  of  said  fat!ts. 

N«)W,  if  such  conse»iueiu'es  are  of  a  more  serious  charactei-  in  the  event  H  ,.|,..,,.| 

of  war  than  in  that  ot  reprisals,  when  not  {general  nor  continueti.  H  | 
|.'177|    it  was  necj'ssary  that  there  should  be  a  dilference  in  the  'imlict 

ment,  in  order  that  there  be  also  a  ditl'ercnce  in  the  punishment, 
which  is  nt>t  to  be  so  severe  in  the  latter  case. 

There-  i,<  another  considerable  dillerenc<' in  the  I'rench  statute,  article  Hi 


SI,  as  re;;ards  the  mati'rial  fact.  It  is  not  sullicieiit  that  such  fact  he 
not  antlnuized  by  the  •••overnment ;  it  is  necessary,  moreover,  that  it  Im' 
in  its(>lf  of  an  hostile  character,  ipardes  actions  hostile 


Tl 


sanu'  wold:-.,  and  the  latter  icipiires,  further,  that  the.  tact  be  such  as  t 
be  (pialifu'd  a  i  limc  by  law.  \par  (|uel(pu'  crime  on  par  des  actes  li().> 
tiles.) 

When  the  <|Uc.slion  was  to  explain  whether  an  aci  was  hostile  or  not, 
the  law  (lid  not  deicriniiie  thosr  which  wcie  to  a»um(>  that  chaiactci 
and  thost;  which  were  not,  but  left  them  to  the  <liscret  ion  of  the  judK<'> 
to  decide  upon  ihat  tpu'stion,  at'ipiitt  in;;  the  dclcndants  w  heiu'Vei  tli< 
case  was  that  of  a'-l";  bciu;;  illicit  only  for  that  neualive  rea.son  thai  tlir 
act  was  not  authoi'i/e<l  l)y  the  ;>o\crnnn'nt.  a  rea:<»Mi  which  cannot  hi' 
admitted  as  bt-in;^  contrary  to  tlH>  constitution:  in  fact,  the  anthori/i 
tion  of  government  is  only  necessary  when  claimed  t*u  oitaiii  and  <!<' 
termim>d  acts,  and  not  in  an  iimletermined  m.uinei,  and  the  law  tt>lerat*'^ 
and  permits  whatever  it  does  not  prohibit. 

The  Spanish  statute  did  not  keep  the  term  •■    the  I'rcnch  st  i; 
|.'57S|    ute,  (hostile,)  but   instead  of  the  W4uds  "  non  Apprim\e,s  *|hii  Ir 
;i»>uvernenienf ,"  it  says  "  noautcni/ados  coaip<-';«'nlemente,"  (in 


permitted  \\\  competent  ant liont.N  ,^  and  thu' 


It   d 


«H"  not    re<|Uiri' 


anthori/ation  of  the  ^jovernmetit  when  the  t.u-t  is  anthori/ed  b.\ 
vhi<-h  dispen.ses  with  any  other  authorization  ;  antl  in  the  pres«>ri 
it  was  nut  lu'cessarv  for  said  statute  to  usi-  the  w«nd  '•  hostile,"'  ai.-. 


tlK 


;iVi 


volves  al 
Sicilies. 

Tlie  lii 

tioiK'd  01 

iiK'innhen 

aiitliori/a 

nation,  si 

Thus  it 

as  to  <,'iyt^ 

n(!ver  he  i 

ment,  and 

a  rea.son, 

It  is  wi 

which  ini<: 

hut  it  is  I 

pre 

i;{7!)|        T 

foiii 

(lilferent  ^ 

.statute,  tl 

volvin;^'  "a 

suits,  thee 

TIUI.S,    Ml 

more  defec 

hits  not  a<l 

clearly  jioi 

taliini  Stat 

As  rey^an 

l>ein{f  po.ssi 

(|ileiices,  di 

»'Wji  prop* 

This  erim 


[soever  ajfai 


le  statutes  of  Sardinia  and  of  the  Two  Siiilies  have  employed  the  Hi 


mere  insult 
•rovocation 
Iroiii  w«'ro  (I 
I  \e 

!'!-^<»j    pMeal 
erinni 
will  he  able 
il'<),  Nos.  .-{ 
<|neiiees  do 
(It  ,ii!ic|(>  L»o, 
l»'i.  the  St 
<"i  the  ea.ses 
It.is  ilecidod 
♦  one.  red    tl 
iiil..,.   .,1    the 
Ji  itukMl  the 
"-•'u.  d  to  <i 

•'  has  f;iv» 
•1  only  a  pre 
'  lequiirs  VH 
'•ill  pnrpo.se 
liiiiaeterot  t 

^  A—II 


COCXTKK    CASK    <)|'    H1K    IMTKl)    STATKS. 


65 


Volvos  ills')  llir  two  ideas  ((TJuh's  oi\  liostilos)  of  tin?  stiitiitc  ot'tlu*  Two 
Sicilies. 

The  nrazilian  statiito  is  still  more  explicit  than  all  the  above-iiien- 
ti()iK'(l  ones,  as  will  l»e  seen  by  tin*  tbllowin<r  words,  which  we  think  it 
iiK'ninbent  on  ns  to  ifiiote  all  at  length :  *'  (Commit  without  the  ordei  or 
authorization  of  government  hostile  acts  against  the  subjects  of  another 
iiiitioii,  such  as  to  eiuhmi^er  peace  or  provoke  reprismls." 

Thus  it  remains  understood  that,  if  the  fact  in  itself  were  not  such 
as  to  <,'iv«\just  reason  for  war  accordiuf?  to  international  ri}j:ht,  it  could 
never  be  repute«l  a  crime,  even  were  it  not  authorize*!  by  the  «;overn- 
lueut,  and  were  it  eventually  followed  by  war.  Such  a  i'iwt,  is  not  then 
a  reason,  but  a  mere  pretext  for  war. 

If  is  within  the  limits  of  moral  possibility  to  avoid  all  acts  from 
which  niij;ht  arise  Just  reasons  for  war,  {generally  acknowlcd}^(Ml  as  such  ; 
liiit  it  is  not  within  the  reach  of  human  ])rudence  to  provide  against 

pretexts. 
i;»7t>j       Th(»  crimination  under  said  arti<*le  did  not  assume  the  ♦same 
form.    Not  cudy  ilid  it  not  make  any  ditt'erence  betweeu  tacts  of 
(lillerent  jj'''>vity,  fallin^if  thereby  into  the  same  error  as  the  Spanish 
statute,  the  Hrazilian  statute,  Mud  our  own  statute  oi'  ISM,  bit  in  in- 
volvinj;  "any  cases  whatsoever"  it  has  still  been  the  {jnmnds  lor  law- 
suits, the  criminality  of  which  has  not  and  cannot  have  any  moral  truth. 
Thus,  and  considered  under  these  two  points  of  view,  the  arti<;le  is 
more  defective  than  those  of  ISrazil,  Spain,  and  our  <»wn  <»f  1H:S7,  and  it 
luis  not  adopted  what  was  proper  in  them,  neither  has  it  imitated,  nor 
dearly  jjointed  out,  nor  amplitied  the  prescriptions  of  the  Fiencli  and 
Italian  statutes  above  mentioned. 

As  rcjj^anls  the  penalty,  in  addition  to  the  jjreatdany:<'r  of  a  liiwfiil  act 
Iteiufj  possibly  incriminated,  the  confusion  of  the  two  eventual  conse- 
(jneuees,  different  in  gravity,  is  the  cause  of  the  same  pniiishment  not 
licin^  proportionat<«  to  the  facts  whi(;li  have  provokeil  the  n>prisals. 

This  I'rimination,  in  its  widest  acceptation,  involves  any  otVense  what- 
I  soever  ajjainst  a  forei^yn  subject  or  forei<f»i  nation,  even  were  it  but  a 
I  mere  insult.  Thus  the  punishment  miy;ht  be  very  severe  though  the 
||irovo(;ation  were  unimportant,  and  though  the  reprisals  arising  there- 
jtroni  were  of  little  conse(pience. 

Xevertheless,  in  onler  to  reduce  as  much  as  possible  the  ap- 

1'5S(»]    plication  of  our  said  article  to  •ri;;ht  proportions,  as  re^iards  the 

criminality  of  the  fact,  according?  to  its  consecpieiu'es,  the  judj^es 

hvill  be  able  to  avail  themselves  of  the  provisions  of  the  statute,  article 

1^(1,   Nos.  .{  and    11,  (combined  with  article  82;  and  when  stwh  conse- 

t|iieiiees  do  not  follow,  or  shall  be  of  no  importatuu',  of  the  provisions 

|tti  aiiicle  L'O,  No.  II,  combined  with  article  8;{,  No.  4. 

I'll,  the  statute  here  is  i»artly  provident,  because,  if  it  has  not  decided 
|«Mi  iIm^  eases  when  a  sli^dit  punishment  corresponds  to  a  material  act,  it 
llt.is  decided  on  those  when  the  punishment  is  to  be  severe.  It  has  thus 
tcoiHvred  the  omission  of  the  Kreneh  and  Spanish  statutes,  it  has 
|:iil><.  il  the  provisions  of  the  above  mentioned  Italian  statutes,  and 
111  •i.,j,.d  the  defeirt  i)f  a  similar  (UM-laration  in  the  Hrazilian  statute  re- 
Mr    id  Co  olU'Uses  committed  apiinst  hrazilian  subjects. 

II'*-  liavarian  -tatute,  article  ;}tM>,  iiuiiniinatts  the  act  of  the  party 
kk>  Inis  ^iven  not  only  a  just  reason,  but  even  an  occasion,  a  facility, 
[f»»  uuly  a  pretext  for  a  Ibieijfu  nation  placin<j  itself  in  a  stat«  of  war,  but 
|!  leiiuiirs  essentially  that  the  proeeediiijifs  of  such  party  be  a^'tuallv  to 
itiiit  purpose,  idiiiis  line  intention  hostile,)  waiving  thus  the  obnoxious 
[<li:ita<'tei<»t  tile  Word  "  pretext, "exceptinjiT  with  lepiid  topeimlty.lMX'ause 
r»  A— 1 1 


•«  ft-  f  ■ 


R 


66 


TKKAIY    OF    WASHINGTON rAl'EKS    ACCOMPANYING 


;r 


thoi  pill  t.v  wlio,  with  a  hostile  intention,  coniniits  siicii  acts  ns  to  pro. 
vok<'  ri;chtl.v  :i  war,  innst  not  bo  phicod  on  the  siiine  liiu^  ot°  criiniiiiility 
Jis  tht'  party  wiio,  with  the  same  intention,  has  only  given  a  pretext  tori 


war. 


li^t ' 


Jf  the  war  he  not  justiticMl  hy  the  ;;ra\ity  of  tho  provocation,  its  con 

seipiences  iue  to  he  morally  imputeil  to  the  a«lverse  nation. 
[.{81]        •As  we  hjue  al'vady  leinaiketl,  it  is  iie(;essary.in  order  to  i)Mn 

ish  ri;:htly  a  crime,  to  (loiisider  not  only  its  remote  moral  cansc, 
but  also  its  imnifiliate  moral  cause,  takiii;;  into  account  its  eltects  aiiilj 
the  intlnence  of  both  causes. 

I'efore  ioiiciiulin;;  our  observations  on  the  i>resent  article,  we  shiilll 
observe  that  our  criticism  bears  more  on  the  wiutls  than  on  the  «loctriiK' 
of  said  article;  becanse,  thou};h  it  involves  in  punishment  the  provoca- 
tion troin  which  arises  a  declaration  of  war,  as  well  as  that  which  is  tliel 
cause  of  reprisals,  it  se<'ms  to  leave  unpunished  the  provocation  to  hos- 
tile acts,  wliieh  «lo  not  assume  the  character  of  a  declared  war,  nor  that 
of  an  attack  or  individual  oltense  a;>ainst  rortugnese  subjects.     Tltisj 
omission  has  appeared  to  be  a  very  serious  one  in   a  penal  statute, 
esp«'«'ially  in  luesence  of  article  IS  of  the  ficneral  provisions  which  forl>i(l| 
t(»  amplity  its  constru"tion  beyond  its  terms,  thou^^h  I  he  reason  tor  pun 
ishineiit  be  identical  or  even  },'rcatei'. 

Ilowev*'!',  as  the  reprisals  involvt^  all  possible  means  for  a  nation  toj 
obtain  satisfaction  of  the  oltense  it  may  have  sulVered,  as  they  msjy  I»of 
ne;;ative  or  positive,  and  these  may  be  general  or  special,  against  tlio 
])ropeity  of  the  nation,  or  that  of  its  individual  subjects,  the  word  ^'iv 

pri.sals"  involves  the  idea  of  liostile  acts.     IVIoreover,  the  woi'il.s|^| 
(.'5.SL'|    '•  declaration  of  war''  in  the  arti<^le  are  to  be  •considered as  equiv 

aleiit  to  the  declaration  of  hostilities,  which  may  be  preceded  livl 
the  seizure  or  arrest,  whi<'h  may  be  withdrawn  when  satista«;tion  is  obi 
tained,  but  are  essentially  involved  in  the  expression  *- reprisals." 

Jiiit  the  real  fault  we  hud  in  the  wording  of  said  aiticleisthat  it  leads 
to  suppose  thiit  a   war  cannot  possibl'    break  (uit  without  being  pre 
viously  declared.    Siu-h  is  indeed  the  ]trinciple  acknowledged  by  ancieiitBii 
Uid  modein  nations;  but  in  practice  it  has  been  .seen  and  it  can  happen^ 


antlior  tin 
or  a  j>rov( 
can.ses  of 
parties,  c( 
liiilliieiice  i 
Hut  tlii.s 
pfuds  the 
lie  oU'eiisi 
for 
:Wt)    thei 

i>ggi 

It  would 

iiiiisiiiiien 

tate,  who 

lidister  si 

ii<;li  antlni 

.Ahavovei 

lie  aiitliori 

iticafivo  «!a 

ill  cfidang 

t'l— that  is 

If  the  am 

r  to  any  ot 

t'l'Sdii  who 

irhoiitacri 

It'  priiicipa 

»'  ('(iiisifh'rc 

'<•  <»f  article 

Theielbre, 

n'si'iit  arti 

iialeiice  of 

i<»y  the  mi.> 

ect  lespoii 

nitv. 


ihat  war  docs  In  gin  in  fact  without  ai.y  reprisals  (»r  any  pievi«Missoleinii| 
declaration,  whether  th'  ollended  nation  be  aggressor  or  attacked. 

Thus,  the  words  ot  the  article  "to  a  «le<'larati(m  of  war"  ought  to  l»fl 
coriect«'«l  by  the  wtuds  ^'U*  a  war."    ('' Am  nnedeclaiation  ni  antreavi:i^i';nNl 
a  rcniiemi  de  rexistence  dc  la  guerre  n'est  necessaire  pour  h'galiscr  Ic- 
hostili(«'s.")     (Whcat«)n,  Droit  int«'rnati«uial,  tome  i,  p.  1-'TJ>.)      When, 
then,  the  war  is  not  preceded  by  a  declaration,  it  is  the  fact  of  war  itscl(| 
that  dispenses  with,  and  prejudges  or  latlu'r  expresses  the  declaration; 
and  it  is  in  such  way  that  the  present  article  i>  to  be  uiah-rstood. 

There  are   more  grounds  to  observe  that   in    the  words  used  by  tlie| 
legislator,  "any  riMtugucsi'  subject,"  wlii«'li  arc  an  imitation 
[.■{iS;Jj    the  words  "  tout  i'lancais''  •in  tlic  l-'reiich  statute,  there  seems 

be  a  concliiHive  argnnii-nt  for  involving  therein  the  ministers  nil 
the  state;  but  that  this  aigiimeiit  losrs  a  great  d«'al  of  its  power  iiil 
consopiciice  ol  aitijh's  1  i<»,  117  and  llS,in  winch  thf  same  words, '•  iiiiv| 
PoituyiM'sc subjects," are  employed  as  an  entity  ditVcreiit  titnii  tlu'cnti' 
"  ynMinment,"  and  thcieloie  dilVeH'iit  Irom  the  iwisons  who  ar«*  pai^ 
there  f. 

tt  appears  to  rcHult  from  the  es|)ecial  woriling  of  this  artkrV,  that  tl 
ministers  ot   the  state  can  only  hv  indicii«i  for  the  crimes  umlcr  arlic'H 
TtH  and  lis,  when   they  ha\<'  authoii/.t  «|  the  lints  loi  which  "any  1'"^ 
tnguesesubjccL" is  generally  liable  to  punishment,  as  diiect  and  princi|ii 


iisr  <i(  iicct'.xHit; 

'''/"•'l.v  aiiMiorii 

Till'  K'ovtTiior 

III  iKllll  Mil)  (Ml 

I"  iiii.v  <'X|iri'SH 
Ii'inlcr  It)  iii„j,| 

IV|l|iiSill8. ((I 

Tims,  ill  iicciir 

III'''  Nllllj.'cl    ul 
'"'"•    lllll  .Slillo 

-\ii>  l*i'rtnjr||,,.v, 

iiMiiiial  ai'U 

A  Will   ii 

^1  ill  ^i>  iiiiii'l 

li'-if  III  th,, 

^'  W-llhclcNs,    I 

'  III  lillii'  III'  fm- 
■'''■  <<iiit'unii(tii 

I'-'U   ;illl|   ,iu;;ri'i 
'  SS   |»l('ci 

'"••'»  and  Mi'ci'i.fi 
'"  wiinls,  "(1, 

r"»T  lillll!-!,    will 

"i""n.   Iliriiiii.r| 
' iKriu  ceua 


COUNTKi:    CASK    OF   TlIK    lINirKI)    HTATK8. 


67 


laiitlior  thereof,  if  said  authorization,  considered  as  an  order,  an  advice, 

lor  a  provocation,  has  been   the  )>rinci|)al  cause  or  one  of  th(>  principul 

lea  uses  of  said  fact,  the  ministers  of  tiie  state  hein;;  then  eoiisid<>red  as 

|ji;n'ties,  coauthors,  or  accomplices  to  such  fact,  on  account  of  thi-ir  {jreat 

[iiilliience  and  in  conformity  witli  tiu'  ^cner-ii  riil4's  of  artich's  'J't  and  2t». 

IJiU  this  sliows  the  «h'ticiency  Jiud  in<'oiierency  of  tlie  statute  as  ro- 

IpiUtls  tlu>  ministers  of  tlu^  state.     If  they  he  considered  as  partu's  to 

tiic  olfens*^  in  a  simihu'  de<:ree,  they  onyht  to  ht^  pninsiied  more  severely 

for  tiu^  sauu>  fact  than  their  codelenthuits,  hecaus(>.  the  abns(M>f 

;;si|     their  power  and  the  want  •of  hnalty  on  their  i)art  is  as  well  in 

ajjyravatinj;  element  as  in. the  case  oi' section  1  of  article  1 1."{. 

It  woidd   he  unjustitiable   that  any  I'ortn^fiu'se  subject  could  escape 

xniishment  in  ('overin^  himself  with  the  anthority  of  the  minister  of 

state,  who  is  the  remote  cause  of  hostilities  and  n'prisals,  ami  that  said 

iiiiiister  should   be  allowed  to  remain  unresptmsiltle  for  having  ;rivun 

sii(;li  authority  in  dir«'ct  opposition  with  artii;le  2'M. 

Moreover,  under  this  arti»tle  L'DS,  with  r«';iard  to  the  direct  offeiuler, 

tlie  anthori/ation  of  the  {government,  in  oKh'r  to  be  eonsidenul  as  a  jiis- 

^iticative  cause  of  the  crimes  from   which   have  arisen  stu;h  results  as 

iill  endanjjer  the  safety  of  the  state,  nuist  be  of  sin  oblij^atcny  charau- 

^(•r — that  is,  such  as  will  inv»»lve  correlative:  obedience  or  an  onler. 

If  the  aiithori/atiiui  \n'  contrary  to  the  fundamental  law  of  the  state, 
}!- 1(»  any  other  law,  it  is  optional,  and  as  su(;h  it  is  iM>t  an  exiaisofor  the 
[)frson  who  has  made  us(>  thereof,  and  who  mi;>'ht  have  not  done  so 
kidioiitacrinu*,  espe(;i:dly  if  there  be  no  hierarchi(;al  connection  between 
kite  principal  otfender  and  the  minister  of  the  state,  suirh  as  the  latter 
,.(' coiisideretl  as  a  superior,  as  is  demonstrated  by  the  argument  of  No. 
^(i  of  artitrle  L'O,  and  of  No.  o  of  arti<'le  It.' 

Tlieretbn',  the  absolute  elenuMit  admitted  without  exception  by  the 
Itrcsent  article  cannot  be  admitted  with  moral  truth.  The  ill-will  oriui- 
triidcnce  of  a  minister  of  the  state  who  authorizes  an  a<'t  does  not  de- 
stroy the  mischievous  nutral  eh'inett  in  the  peison  so  authorized  nor  tho 
lii-ecMcsponsibility  which  arises  from  the  aluise  of  his  liberty  and  ac 
livity. 

|3<))       "  It  would  liavc  Im'cii  (•i>iivfiiitiit  that  tlii'  stiitnlc  Iiatl  t'xci'|>ti'il  tlmst'  acts  of 
«li-lViiHn  or  ))rovocatiiiii  wliicli  the  f^ciirial  dflff^iitcs  ot"  the  noviTiinicnt  may,  in 
HsiMil  ni'ci>sHily,  Ih;  oliliHrcil  to  coiniiiit,  thoii){li  not  t'Oiii|>etiiit  to  do  ho,  nor  liciii^  pru- 
^ioiisly  auMiorixcd  for  tliut  N|iiM'ial  |Mir|ioN«>. 
Till-  ;;ovfriior  ot'onr  dominions  a'uroad,  evon  ni'onr  provinces  and  imval  .stationHdiH- 
Riit  tVom  tln!  <!oa«t,  tin'  commanders  of  milittry  liodics,  ol'  mcn-ur-war,  \c.,  can,  witli- 
Jiit  any  express  oriler  I'roin  the  jjovernnn'Ol,  repel  l>y  lorce  ofarms  any  .attack,  or  even, 
^1  miler  to  nuiintain  the  national  diunity  and  interests,  take  t  lie  initiativt;  ot'  hostilities 
ii'inisais. — (Oitolan,  Ijiyles  interiiationahs.  Iiv.  :{.  cap.  \\,    I'rin.  yen.) 
ihiM,  in  accordance  with  what  we  have  said,  the  words  of  the  article,  "Any  I'ortn- 
ii»' siihjcci  w  ho  shall,  liy  any  act    whatsocxer,  not  aiithi)ri/"d  liy  tin- ^^overninent, 
|Hisc  ||ii>  stato  to  a  declaration  of  war,''  nii;;hl  he  conveniently  coriectid  as  follows: 
[Aii\  l'i>rln;;nese  siiliject  not  anthoii/.cd  liy  the  ^ov  crniin  lit,  wlm  shall,  Ity  any  hostiln 
iiiiiiiiial  acitt  w  hatso.-ver.  expose  the  slate  to  a  war." 

\  war  itself  is  nothini;  moie  than  a  stati*  of  general  and  conlinned  reprisals, 

'^  I  ill  >'i  much  as  w  hat   is  allow  id  to  one  of  t  he  liclli^^i'i'ciit  jiar't  ics  is  considered  a.s 

licit  to  the  othi  I.  -  (Schalm/.  Droit  ihs  mns  enrop.,  Iiv.  iJ,  cap.  I,  p.  '2i  I.) 

jNi^cit  helcNs.  there  is  a  limit  to  the  priii'iplc  as  rc;>ards  those   nations  which  keep 

||  Ml  time  ot  ijwitce,  a  w  ai  like  apparatus  on    land  and   on  sea;  and  whos.- armies  and 

Vn^.  confonndnt;;   hy   their  atlitodt^  the   preventive  state   with   that    id'  permanent 

li<al  anil  iiu^ireNsion,  endani^ir  the  cMsteiice  or  independence  of  oih  'C  natioim,  in  a 

'  •>!  less  precise  manner,  on   ncconnt   of  their  liiin^   .-iltle,  at    any  time,  hy  hiiddiMi 

hi)-!"  and  secretly  fitrwarded,  tocariy  into  elfect  a  naval  aliack  or  an  invasion, 

I'liii'  words,  " dcclaiatioii  of  war,"  have  no  inori-  the  s.mie  sense  they  iisi'd  to  have  in 

joiiiT  liniC'i,  wlicii  siii'li  declaratinii  w.is  an  intiin.ilioii    inaile   to  a  iiaii.>n  on  its  own 

liiiiiiiy,   tliroiijrji   11  herald-at  aims,  ov  a  iiiesscn;,>cr,  as  if  it   were  a  cliall 'ii)r '.     '!'ho 

lliiiin  form  ceu.sed   to  lit)  {Muvliccd  altotil    tho  middlo  of  tin;  seventcuiitli  uiMitiiry, 


'1] 
i  I 

J 

1  1 


m 


6» 


riM'.ATY    oy    WASllIN'OTON — I'Al'KUS    ACCOMPANYING 


1)^  i. 


Moreover,  in  the  Huiiie  iiiaiiiieruH  section  I  of  article  143  poiuts  out  to 
tliu  iiiiiiiMters  or  llie  state  wiieii  tliey  are  direct  aiitliorn  of  facta  to  which 
same  Hection  referH,  and  asartit^lu  li)S  points  (generally  to  all  superior  tunc 
tionaries,  who  have  ordered  any  criminal  act  too  their  subordinates,  in 
the  same  manner  ou*;lit-  they  to  be  pointed  out  too  when  they  havu 
merely  authorized  such  fa<;ts,  and  been  thus  the  cause  of  warunil  repri 

sals,  by  ;;ivin^  to  another  person  a  letter,  a  diploma,  or  instriw;  | 
|.'{8UJ    tions  such  im  *to  be  prejudicial  to  »  foreign  nation,  or  to  its  sub 
jectH. 
In  such  (;ircumstances,  a  minister  of  thti  state  is  criminal  cither  bv 
treason  or  by  imprudence,  and  he  is  always  responsible  for  all  direct  ori 
indirect  acts  of  provocation  :    ilrst,  if  his  a)j;p;ression  benot  jnstitied; 
secondly,  if,  thou{<[li  it  be,justitle<l,  there  arises  tor  the  nation  a  greater 
l>olitical  and  nuiterial  injury  on  account  of  its  havin<;  resorted  to  arms; 
thirdly,  if  he  provokes   in  a  direct  or  indirect  manner  without  having 
previously  calculate«l   the   respective   forces  of  both  parties  for  attack | 
and  defense. 

So  much  the  greater  is  the  extent  of  the  political  ri};ht,  as  regards  the  I 
declaration  of  war,  ^iven  under  arti<;le  1'),  setstimi !),  of  the  charter,  to  the 
exet'jitive  power,  who  is  not  restrained  to  discussion  on  that  point  in  thel 
le;;islative  chandlers;  so  much  thej^reater  also  and  more  especial  niustbel 
the  le^al  penalty  iniheted  upon  the  ministers  of  the  state  who  ^:ive  rise,! 
by  provocations,  to  reprisals  a;;ainst  the  country,  and,  in  conse(pieiice| 
theriM>f,  involve  tlit^  nation  in  enormous  sacrilicis,  dilliculties,  and  dan 
^ers. 

Moreover,  if  tht>  prescMit  article  considers  as  an  absolute  impedimeiit| 
the  authori/atiou  of  the  pivernment  for  a  prov<M;atiou  to  war  or  repri 
sals,  both  justice  and  policy  re(piire  that  tlu;  statute;  should  criminatel 
the  fact  of  the  anthiui/ation  in  itself,  when  it  is  abusive  or  criminal,  (Hil 
the  mendiers  of  the  cabinet,  who  hsive  taken  part,  in  it  as  authors  ur| 
acitompliccs. 

If  the  <;r  nies  which  may  be  committed  by  the  ministers  *of  tlirl 
state  in  their  oilicial  tunctions  be  of  an  especial  character,  whielil 
be  dealt  with  by  a  particidar  law,  it  would  have  been  convel 
f(»r  the  sti.tute  not  to  provide  in  any  uninner  against  them,  imrl 
t;0  menti«>ii  them,  neither  in  an  esixcial  manner,  as  in  tlie  above-quo[i(l| 
section  I  of  article  14t{,  nor  in  a^riMteral  andabsolute  nuinner,  as  it  happeiiil 
at  every  instant,  (any  l*ortuj?nese  subject,  any  public  functionary,)  witliT 


is  to 
nient 


[;W7]  wluMi.iii  plai'o  tliiTfdf,  )i|i|H'ar*u(l  th«  (UicrecH  for  war,  oftic.ial  iiotictMif  which  il 
^ivtMi  all  iiaO<*i>s.  wIiimIh'I-  toes,  allies,  or  lu'iitnils,  aiitl  in  a<'i-iiin|»aiii)-(l  with  iiiiinr 
itt'Ntrt  tir  fxpoNilioii  nt' jiiHtilic:iiiv<i  iiiolivos,  in  aiiMWtT  to  which  coiintur  iiiaiiit'oHts  apl 
also  ihHiifd  until  tli<-  hostiliiit^H  actually  hrcak  out.  tlowcvcr,  ccitaiii  anthorH,  Huclia'l 
IfyuktM'Hhock, coiitvhil  that  thi.st;  niaiiiioHts aro.not.  ncccsHary, uiid  il  ofttMi  hapiioiiH tliaif 
tho  rcMpcciivi'  hituatitui  ot°  two  nations  i.s  cithi  r  Hinhlcnly,  or  t'rtun  hontilo  actn  to  imvl 
lihi  ui-tH,  lH-on;r|it  to  tlif  actual  niaiiitistatiou  of  war.  Wars  hav«)  taken  place  witliiiiitl 
any  {ueviiuis  <hclaraMon  :  sudi  was  tln^  war  luttwcen  France  iiiid  lOuKland  which  IminI 
out  in  .lune,  17.V>,  anil  wasmily  solctunly  declared  in  May,  17r>ii;  and  in  tlio  ne;i;otiati(iii*l 
whi(;h  took  place  in  ITlil,  between  the  coartH  (d*  ViMs.'tilht.s  and  Londoii,  with  i<-;;anll 
to  rcNtitntion  and  coni|i<Misalion  for  i,in«  prizes  caplio'ed  previous  to  Haid  diMdaraiioiJ 
the  latter  ciHirt  eoutended  that  such  claim  was  groundless  for  want  of  a  Hpecial  cm  f 
v(;ution,  and  as  Ixiii};  tiejiendent  upon  u  puiiit  of  the  law  of  natioim  liahlu  tucuiil 

tcstatitui. 
[iW-i]       '  Hut  ^iirli  HurpriseM  assume  a  perthlious  and  treacherous  character.     It  is  tli'| 

war  of  pieuleo  and  lii;rliwayunMi  practiced  on  the  lii^h  seas.  Happily  such  nii>I 
<l«'n  af,;};rcssiouH  are  nowadays  very  improhahle,  in  fact  every  war  beinj(  preceded  Ml 
iMHtaiii  symptoms  ind  preparatory  acts  iudii;ative  of  a  stato  of  transition,  ami  con.stiT 
tute,  as  it  were,  an  im]died  diMduratiou.  which  takes  the  place  of  a  soleiiiu  uml  expli<'il 
(Hie.  All  ahHolutt!  secret  is  not  possihlts  in  the  preseiir  statu  of  ori;ani/atiou,  rulatioti^ 
und  easy  intercourse  lietwecn    modern   nations. — (Ortolan,  licgl.  intern,,  liv,  II,  cap. ' 


COIINTEK    CASE    OF    TIIK    irNITKH    STATICS. 


69 


P 


Ml),  iitiri 


witlxiiiil 
icli  IhinI 
;iitiati()ii| 
ill  r.'^anil 
:llllilII0li,r 
!C,lill  •'"if 

1   H>  (:t'"| 

It  is  tli'l 
iieli  Nil''! 
cimIoiI  ''4 
il  coiistil 

ri'lalioii* 
«,  tiiit.  1 


I 


out  liny  ilofi'Jisiincft  wliutsoever  for  said  inini.^tors,  nr;ninsit  wlioin,  as  wo 
shiUl  HPio  ill  a  gnnit  irmiiy  placos,  tliti  statnto  providtis  in  a  manner  irriH- 
ory,  iibsurd,  and  of  impoHsible  application. 

AuTiCLK  I'tVt.  Any  jxTson  who,  without  thii  nntliori/ation  of  the 
govern  men  t,  shall  rcn-rnit  or  procnre  to  bo  recniittMl,  hire  or  procure  to 
1m!  hired,  men  for  a  foreijjii  military  or  naval  w^rvice,  or  shall  procure 
arms,  or  ships,  or  munitions  for  the  same  purpose,  shall  be  (condemned 
to  the  maximum  of  correctional  imprisonuntnt  and  to  the  maximum  of 
time. 

Only  SKCvrrox.  If  the  olVemler  be  a  foreigner,  he  shall  be  tem- 
porarily expelled  from  the  country. 

This  article  appears,  with  respect  to  its  wordinjj,  to  have  been  copied 
from  the  arti<'le  22  of  the  French  penal  statute  : 

Siuoiit   iMiiiis  do  inort  ccnv  (|iii  iiiirotit  li'V*'  on  fait  lever  (Ion  tniii|u<s  iiriiit'i'M,  t'w^ixfrfi 
on  oriiVtle,  fait  niifraKer  on  iMirAli  r  iIcm  Holdats,  on  lenr  anront  fonrni  iIl-h  arrn(>H 
l.'iOl  I    <*'■  niiinitKMiH  Han.s  ordt'o  on  anlorisati(Mi  dn  "(ronvernunKMit." 

I{y  the  construction  of  that  arti(^le  it  is  not  doubtful  that  it  can 
I  only  be  enfiuced  in  cases  where  it  may  be  proved  that  such  recruitinpf  had 
for  object  to  disturb  the  internal  safety  of  the  country.    The  court  of  cas- 
sation at  I'aris,  in  its  i)roceedinss  of  the  l.'Jth  of  February,  lias  decided 
tiiat  such  proof  was  not  recpiired,  and  that  the  law  being  silent,  the  ma- 
Itoriiil  fact  alone  was  to  be  considered,  excluding  entirely  its  obje(;t. 

I'.nt  Chauveau  ami  llcli*'^  (Theorie  du  Code  IVnal,  cap.  18,)  show  that 
hills  (loctriTie  is  altogethi'r  contrary  to  the  law,  and  that  the  legislator 
cannot  have  intended  to  inttict  capital  punishment  for  offenses  of  other 
Icliaiiicter. 

Such  a  penalty  could  not  be  Justified  as  coiKrerning  enlistments  for  a 
JforcigM  <'ountry.  This  fa<!t  is  not  <'riminal  in  itself,  luit  only  when  the 
|-<tl)j('(t  is  not  honest,  or  when  it  infringes  the  municipal  laws,  or  laws  of 
||)oli('c,  or  of  ])ublic  convenience.  It  is  the  selfishness  of  jiroper  (conser- 
vation, leaving  the  contending  parties  or  belligerent  powers  to  themselves, 
Jwhcii  a  succor  of  that  kind  might  save  them,  or  bring  the  war  to  a 
I  sooner  anil  more  honorable  conclusion. 

Our  statute  has  taken  that  crimination  and  applied  it  not  only  to  en- 
listments for  foreign  military  service,  but  also  to  naval  and  mili- 
!  5!)L'|  tary  *service  itself.  It  has  declared  an  offense  that  which  is  essen- 
tially of  a  chara<'ter  that  no  government  whatsoever  can  make 
jlicil,  for  the  government's  authorization  can  only  be  granted  to  that 
Bwliich  is  morally  licit.  Hut  if  the  violation  of  the  law  consists  only  in 
jiiejjlectiiig  thiit /onnnliti\  the  intVingemeiit  assumes  the  character  of  a 
|«i('lin<|ueiu.'y  of  more  or  less  impjutance,  but  can  never  assume  that  of  a 
lo'iiiie. 

The  crimination  <»f  tlu' French  statute,  with  the  same  provision  for 
apital  ])unishinent,  was  adopted  by  our  statute  of  I.s;>7,  with  the  same 
liiu'aning,  but  with  <lirect  connection  to  any  object  whatsoever,  except 
mn  the  case  of  urgent  necessity  for  repelling  an  imminentdanger  of  the 
|country  attacked  by  war  abroad  or  on  its  territory. 

The  same  statute  implicitly  prohibited  any  recruiting  or  enlistment 
Itu'lbreign  service,  but  authorized  all  individual  ettorts  of  that  nature 
ju  cases  of  stringent  necessity  for  defense  abroad  and  in  the  country. 

The  Brazilian  penal  statute  has  omitted  such  provisions,  and  we 
Rliall  not  criticise  it  on  that  account.    It  incriminates  only  in  a  general 
manner,  under  article  73,  the  fact  of  hostilities  against  the  subjects 
Df  another  nation,  such  as  to  endanger  peace  or  to  provoke  to  repri- 
sals. 
[393]       •The  Spanish  statute,  nniTer  article  147,  No.  (5,  inflicts  the  pun- 


70 


TKK.VTY    Ol'    WASIIIXCTON I'APEKH    ACCOMI'ANYINQ 


!' 


iHliinctit  of  iroiiK  up  to  tluit  of  <l<>atli  on  niiy  otict  \vlio  Kliall,  ^iiliin  tin 
(('iiitorv  of  Spiiiii,  recruit  iiicii  tor  tiic  scrx  i«'«'  of  tlu>  siriiiioH  of  an  Ims 
tilr  |>o\v«'i.  We  .«-liall  tlifrrloro  omit  it.  witli  r»';;ar(l  to  onr  inrsciu 
arti«'I«'. 

Tlu'  staint*'  of  Sanlinia,  article  LSI,  ami  that  of  tbo  Two  Sicilies,  cdn 
cur  with  our  two  «M.ses,  iMiwei'n  wiiich,  however,  tliey  make  a  dilVcr 
« iM-e. 

In  the  fii.st  case  the  Sardinian  statnte  iiillicts  tenipiMarv  rechisioii  or 
the  ;.':ille.\s,  ac<-oi<lin;;  to  circnmstanc<-s,  ami  capital  piniislimeiit  in  tlii' 
M'coml.  'llie  statute  of  the  Two  Sicilies  inflicts  also  <'apital  pnnisli 
nieiit  in  the  latter  eas4>,  Imt  in  that  of  our  article  it  intlictH  teni|)onuv 
exile. 

'l"lu'    modern    Havarian    statute,  article  IWO,  No.   I,  provides   fur  sin 

oll'ense  which  is  suhstantiallv  the  same,  and  is  tunisidered  as  treason  at  I 

tlie  tonrth  de;,M-ee,  and  punished  as  such  with  imprisonment  for  a  tcniij 

of  two  to  six  years. 

CVlni  qui  enroliT.i  wfri-toiiirnt  «1«'B  HiijctH  dn  lovninno  an  Kcrviro  iPHiie  puhnmirr  hi- 
ligt'raiilf  rtratnjirr.ou  qui  pri'lua  aitic  tt  UHiiiiiUiute  d  «»  rviruhur  hoh  attturimi  pour  \'v\i- 
cutioii  (li;  M-s  il<'SM-iim. 

Under  the  other  (ierinan  statutes,  in  eonnei;tion  with   the  crime  oil 
treason,  urv  vnnxidiird  anil  punislud   as   luutuj   prcparntortf  (t(u\ 
l^ilitj    thirittt  the  rivruHiiuj  iwnX  pur*chasesof  arms  and  munitions.     Tiiv 
same  do<trine  is  to  he  l'oun«l  in  the  Prussian  statnte,  section  *!l 
Finally,  the  Austrian  statute,  under  article  77,  (;oncnrs  als(»  with  oiirl 
article,  hut  it  provides  only  that  a  similar  criminati(Ui  he  punished  liv[ 
tlie  military  law,  conlinin;;  it,  however,  to  the  state  of  war  with  tl 


lisli  the  inr| 

this  is  a  cri 

will)  appret 

What !  n 


II  nation  sti 


peini 
#1 


the  n 
vjilcd.  It  u 
the  oll'cndel 
whose  olijee 
iii^'  lor  mai  i 
(riiitin*;'  tor 

licciproca 
W(»rlliy  of  4' 
mere  formal 

III  nicifai 
oiic  luMir's  d 
less  a  ('oinnii 
piolitalile  hi 
(ifttii  iiecessi 
nii<lertakin.<> 
|i:Hiitoiy  act: 
tioii  ii 
l.i!'7|  *ili 
!.1!»."^|     *of  til 


recriiitiiiL'  nation. 


(.'•7m(  qui  niiolv  di.-i  hountw*  /Htiir  iin  umicc  mililiiirv  I'lniiKjcr     *     ' 
cjii/oniiiini'iit  itiix  loin  iHtliluirtM,  pur  Iv  imnvoirmililuiri:. 

This  ohservation  was  piescnt<'d  Ity  ('aml)a<M'ies  to  the  conncil  of  stati 
(Iniiii;;  the  discns.^ion  ot  the  l<'iench  penal  statute.  Mr.  lieilier  replied 
that  there  was  no  iiiconveiiieiict^  in  inscriliin^  such  provision  in  tlii' 
Htatute.  Iiut  the  ahove  nieiilioned  t/hauveaii  and  Ilelii'^  answere<l  tiicii 
that  siu'h  a  crimination  wouhl  l»e  useless,  l»e(rause,  if  it  is  acknowledjicd 
that  the  incriminated  facts  are  of  a  military  (character,  he  did  not  set 
any  reasonahle  ^iiound  that  wouhl  Justify  such  an  ex(;e|>tion  as  insert 
in^  said  provision  in  the  common  law.  It  would  he  a  deni;>°ation  of  tlii' 
order  of  matters  which  was  propose<l  to  lui  followed  by  the  statute. 

However,  if  the  deteiidants  on  the  crime  nmler  our  sai«l  artitrle  be  net 
soldiers,  they  cannot  be  trieil  by  the  military  coiiits,  in  accordam;e  witli 

the  provisions  of  our  statnte,  article  1<>. 
[.'JO.")]  As  i(';;ards  the  penalty,  that  of  correctional  im*prisonment  ami 
the  tine,  we  acknowled;ie  that  it  is  appropriated  to  the  olfeii.-i' 
under  said  artich*.  It  is  one  of  the  very  lew  cast's  where  pecuniiiiy 
punishment  has  not  the  inc(uivenience  of  beinjLT  coiiiiscation.  Without 
Iiecnniary  means  n«i  one  does  recruit,  no  <me  becomes  a  soldier,  no  oiu' 
hires  himseli'  »a-  procures  himself  to  be  !iir«'d.  .M(Miey  is  here  the  priii 
cipal  induee'iieiit,  or  the  insti'iiment,  of  the  olfeiise.  A  heavy  tine  i^ 
certainly  a  means  to  stop  it,  in  coiitbrmity  with  arti<tle  .Si  of  the  statutr 

Htjwever,  the  otVeiise  may  be  of  jiiealer  or  of  less  <,fravity,  the  cir 
cinnstaiices  of  the  case  may  exculpate  or  not,  and  in  a  jjjreater  or  lev 
dejjree,  ac<*ordiii<;  to  the  intention  of  the  otfend(>r.  To  re»;ruit  in  a  for 
eij;n  couMtry  for  raisinjj  the  cry  of  lil)erly,  of  independence,  or  of  le^'iti 
luacy,  is  an  enterprisi'  which  ex<ites  the  sympathies  of  a  noble  puhlid 
and  of  all  men  who  hate  tyranny,  injustice,  nsnrpation.  To  recruit  in 
order  to  restore  absolute  power,  to tjooperato  in  conrpiest,  to  re-estab 


inllicK 
{Hi  jiiiji it  )iiiH,^  (ion,    but    ol 

actcr. 
|;]!)!»|        *Tlii 


'  Mr,  l,i\  V  CO 
iilif  MTviic ;  ||i> 
mihI  tli:it  it  j.s  II 

lllll\\illlsli|ln|il|< 
ii'Mslllf.  \\i;  (Id  I 
lr:tsii||  f,,|-  Ijiiijij 
liiMclfd  DM  III,,  s 
ill'-  Icyi.sliitor  iiii 

llHII'llillltlllCII,   III 

^ill|lll(l  ;i|i|i('iii'  at 
i*  iidi  )iiijii(lii-ia 
^iip|.|ic,|  with  III 

I  '1  li'li  it;l|  liiiicl 
llliilc  lllic  ri';;iilat 
■"■'•  l<>  Ik-  lllilllltcl 
'  'if.  illlil.  iC  jiiiy 
iiiiiii<  (liati  ly  iiiti 
"11  "ilniiiiy,  sell, 

^' >ti  ol  till-  Co 

liiiii  is  ImiiiiiiI  III 
»!iil<irs,  irilh  dnla 
Uii  tlcf. 

'lliils,  tjie  iiicai 
"""//.  eaii,  w  jiliii 
"  iiiilittiifi  Kfiriic  < 
ii'Ji'-iiiilliii>i:titioii  i 
•';:.iinst  flu.  lociu 
iiniitidiieij,  Willi  I 

.\ii.vho\v,  wi)  acl 
't  itioro  pioiier  t(t 

''   iU/illllUIits,   till 

Jictoiy  Willi  till' II 


COl'NTI.R    CASi:    Ol'   Till;    UNITKU    HTATK8. 


71 


lisli  tiic  iiMinisitioti,  to  dcstioy  tho  propcity  or  ncdit  of  aiiotlicr  nation, 
this  is  a  jTiuH*  wliirli  t'xcitt's  li(»rror,  aii<l  wliidi  is  ilctrstcd  liy  all  llioso 
wild  appreciate  order,  peace,  and  tlie  iiappiness  of  nianlxind. 

Wliat  I  must  sucli  proceedings  lie  inci  iniinaled  if  intended  to  sticeor 
;i  iiiition  strn;;;>lin;^'  with   niieipnd  forces  in  order  to  maintain   its  intlu- 

peiideiice  oi'  its  lil»erty,«>r  its  le;;itimate  |)iince.' 
|;i!l(i|  *rpon  tliese  promises  a  jK-nally  wliicli  always  tlireat«'ns  with 
the  maximnm  (d'  ]iniHslMnent  is  a  vicious  one,  as  it  cannot  lie  di< 
vidcd.  It  necessarily  eanses  a  too  se\('r<^  punishment  to  lie  indicted  on 
the  olVcn«ler  whose  <il»ject  was  nolile  ami  {fencrons,  as  well  as  the  ono 
whose  «ilijecl  was  aliominalile  and  lias*'.  Monuivi'r,  reernitin;;  or  enlist- 
iii^i  for  maritime  servici^  is  not  in  itself  as  important  as  enlisting;  or  ro- 
cniiliiiiii'  tor  the  military  ot  naval  service  of  a  foreiy:n  powi'r. 

Ileeiprocal  free  tiade  between  nations,  which  is  so  prolitalile  and  so 
wdithy  of  «'nconra<;(  ;<ient,  shall  always  e.\enlpat<'  an  infringement  (d'  a 
iiieic  formality  of  aithori/atioii. 

In  mereantilci  s^iecnlations  connected  with  travels  liy  s»>a,  one  (hiy's, 
line  hoar's  delay.,  nay  miscarry  a  ;<()od  bnsint'ss,  rnin  or  render  worth- 
less a  connnerciai  operation  which  woulil  otherwise  have  proved  most 
prolitalile  had  it  lieeii  mana<>cd  in  due  time.  Tin;  secret  itself,  which  is 
dlteii  nci'essary  to  keep,  the  secret  which  is  lln^  soni  and  liltMif  sntdi 
iiiidertakin<>s,  will  not  permit  to  lu>  piirticnlar  aliont  tlu>  delay  for  pre- 
pinatory  a«tts,  <lelay  which  would  involve  the  necessity  of  an  anthorizii- 


tnin  in  similar  cases. 


.r.u 


•Thus,  if  considered  under  this  jioint^  of   view,  the    ilefeets 
[;i'.l,s|    *of  the  penalt,\    are  jiicater  still.     'I'he  sanu'  punishment  is  not 
inlliclcd  lor  facts  of  (lilVerent   .yravity  with  icjiard  to  the   iiiten- 
(i(»ii.    liiit    of    dilfereiit    jiiavity    with    rej^ard    to    their   actual    char- 
acter. 
I.'iil'.tl        *This  crimiiiatiou  1ms  its  "rouinls  in  the  doirtrines  of  ^Volfand 


i!r 


I  tiiciil 
I'djicil 
(it   s(t| 
insert 
of  lb- 


I  he  not 
H\  witlil 


at  atm| 
]iilVeii> 
Inniaiyi 
'itlinntl 

|no  nlic 

prill  I 
lline  i'" 
Itatatr 
lie  eir| 
lor  h 

a  for] 


hu 


blic 
i-nit  iiil 


■  Mr.  l.cvv  coiitiiiil.s  thill  siiiil  iulicln  is  to  In-  iiinlt'isloiHl  jih  luoviiliii^iiiily  fur  wiir- 
iikf  s«'i  virf ;  lit-  j;riiiii(ls  Ins  (i)iinion  (in  tlic  fiicl  Unit  tlic  niiifunv  wdiild  Ik-  no  ali- 
Miiil  tliiit  it  i.s  iMit  |Hi.>^silili>  III  .siip|iiiM'  iliiit  the  i('i;i>lat(ir  wniild  h:i\i-  riiiultd  it.  ISiif., 
iiiitwitlisiiiiiiliii^  ill!  the  r('h|it('t  iinil  <!('.>'(  rvtil  ailniiiatidii  we  )ia,v  tn  the  ,viiini<;  Jinis- 
ciniMilt,  \\(;(liMi(it  Mf  in  tlif  \\<ii(l.'<  iMir  ill  tin-  idiitixt  nl' the  arlidr  aii.v  tiniiliisivi) 
ir;i--nii  ftir  limit i ii;;  its  )  i<ivi.>-i<'iis.  \\'(i«'  it  even  an  alii'iratimi  Ikiim  all  tlial  has  lircii 
riiai'ti'd  on  till-  siiiiJiM't  ill  otiii'i'  st  at  lit  is,  as  the  iiicriniinatrii  (ai-t  isonlv  a  ilcliinincni'y, 
lip  li'^iisliitor  iiia.v  have  (•(iiiNidcit  il  llir  in  (•cs.vity  ot  niaiiiiinfi  oiir  own  iiu'ii-ot-war  aial 
iiMicliaiitnicn,  anil  we  do  not,  tliriiloii',  coiisidri'  said  |iiovi>i(in  to  Ix-  so  ali.siiid  as  it 
^!llluld  a|)|i('ar  at  lir.st.  'i'lic  rrciiiitiii.i;;  of  sailors  lor  tlic  national  iin  rrantilr  sliippiii;; 
]«  not  ]iii'Jiidit-ial  to  till*  iri-niitiii;;' lor  till*  navy,  lint  niorrovi  i  nnr  nun-ot'' war  can  lio 
Mi|i|iliril  with  men  IVoin  our  mrirhant-vi'ssids.  wliili',  on  tin*  lontraiy.  tin'  irciiiitiii;;' 
111  Init  inn  mrrcliaiitmcii  drjirivcs  oiir  navy  of  sailors.  And  it  is  >o  wi-ll  I  In-  oisf  iliaf, 
nnili  It  In-  iT'^iilalioiisor  tlii'IliMli  of  August,  \>'.\'J,  article  ll'.ol  ill  apt  IT ;'.,  all  meieliaiitnieii 
.ire  to  lie  niiniilely  seafehed  in  Older  that  lliey  do  not  idiKf  I'mhi'initi  .\(til<iis  irilliitiil 
I  iin .  and.  iC  any  sin  h  sailois  he  I'ennd  on  I  maid,  tl-.e  ea|itaiii  of  the  port  is  to  take  them 
iiMiiuiliati  ly  into  custody  and  ;iive  them  np  to  the  ]iolice  olliei'i'.  w  ho  shall,  hy  the  lirst 
"11  oilnnilx,  seiiil  Ihciii  to  the  navy  miard.  where  they  sliall  he  sliipjicd  on  hoard  a 
M  --el  ol  the  Clown.  A  lid  under  the  pio\  isioiis  of  the  additional  ai  t  ieic,  the  said  cap- 
iiiiii  is  hiiiiiid  to  make  all  pii>silile  dili^eiiie,  in  oiih  r  to  have  always  u  list  of  all  the 
-uilms.  irilli  (hrhiruliiiii  of  llir  )ii>>«lur  of  nun  niwit  irlioin  loif  moil  nihoit  for  the  s(rrkf  of 
Ui,  tU, I.  '  ' 

'fliiis,  the  iiieaiiiii;r  of  forei;.;ii  naval  service   though  not  military,  hut  j/iird/ Koi/ccflcH- 
n'/v.  can,  without  appi  urance  of  ahsiiK!;;  •  ,  |.  '  ronsideicd  ;is  invoheil  in   the  wiiids 

llie  more  that  in  this  way  Ihe  fact  of 


hiilitinij  ntil(r  01  foit:ii;il  hornl  narhr,"  so  n 

ijii-iinllioii:<ition  is  incriii.inatcd   aj^Jiinst   tin 

;ainst  the  re<'iiiifs  and  the  |inrties  accejn ii 


■inlnii/  ('»/(■» ^  , 'IS  It    was  incriinin 


itted 


he  eiili.stcd,  hy  scctiuns  I  and  2  aliove, 


lejlitlH  wiiitidiieil,  with  the  expres.s  dcNijjnatimi  oi       /.A   nlhiai. 


Anyhow,  we  acknnwlctljfo  tl'.at  llit!  wordia^j  <;f  ',he  article  is  not  ^mid,  lint  we  deem 
it  mere  proper  to  criticise  the  law,  iti  ord(  r  that  il  he  altered,  than  to  n  sort  to  the  la.st 
if  aiminu'iits,  the  aij;nii;e]it  <r  «/»«»)•(/'».  i  i  cK'.cr  tl:;:t  its  liti  lal  jiKn  i.'-ioi.s  he  coiitra- 
Itiiv  w  ilh  themselves.     Dura  Ivx,  scd  U\c, 


II 

i. 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


11.25 


^5  0      '""= 


56 


112 


til 

t  m 


1.4 


IM 

12.2 
2.0 

1.8 


II!  1.6 


HiotDgraphic 

Sdences 
Corporation 


\ 


# 


s? 


:\ 


fv 


\ 


o^ 


-"""^"^J^ 


23  Vihil  MAIN  STREET 
WEBSYER.N.Y.  14580 

(716)  <i72-f.>')1 


'^ 


'V- 


'j^^Sf 


,^ 


>J"  '■? 


It 

i 


72 


TKKATY    OF    WASHINGTON — PAPERS    ACCOMPANYING 


Vattel,  claimed  by  the  American  (lovernmeut  in  1793  ia  the  bef^iiiiiiiijr 
of  the  war  in  P^urope,  aud  which  have  been  incorporated  in  an  act  of 
Congress  of  1794,  corrected  and  re  enacted  in  1818. 

Under  the  provisions  of  said  act  it  is  not  or  y  an  oftense  to  increase 
the  force  of  a  vessel  of  war  of  a  friendly  conntry,  and  to  prepare  a  mil- 
itary expedition  against  said  country,  but  equally  to  iiire  or  recruit  rnoii 
for  any  foreign  service  on  land  or  on  the  water. 

The  example  of  America  was  soon  followed  by  Great  Jiritain,  by  ;iii 
act  of  Parliament,  (59  Geo.  Ill,  cap.  59,)  known  as  "An  act  to  prevent 
the  enl'.stment  or  recruiting  of  His  Majesty's  subjects  for  foreign  sor 
vice,  or  the  armament  and  equipment  within  His  Majesty's  dominions, 
with  an  intent  of  war  without  His  Majesty's  permission." 

The  principal  reason  upon  which  Vattel  and  Wolf  ground  their  opin 
ion  in  condemning  enlistments  without  the  authorization  of  the  gov- 
ernment, is,  that  recruiting  constitutes  au  exclusive  prerogative  of  sov 
ereignty,  which  no  one  can  legitimately  exercise,  without  express  leave, 

in  the  territory  of  another  state. 
[400]  But  all  the  prerogatives  of  sovereignty  *have  their  Just  limits. 
It  does  not  extend  further  than  what  is  required  in  order  to  accom- 
plish the  social  object.  If  the  enlistment  be  not  prejudicial  to  the  na 
tional  military  service,  if  it  does  not  free  the  recruits  of  the  tribute  of 
blood  they  are  to  ])ay  to  their  country,  where  is,  then,  the  ofiensc 
against  its  prerogative  ? 

The  federal  constitutional  act  of  Germany,  signed  at  Vienna  on  the 
8th  day  of  June,  1815,  permits,  by  article  18,  all  subjects  of  the  con 
federated  states  "  to  enter  the  civil  or  military  service  of  any  of  those 
states,  provided  that  such  right  do  not  interfere  with  the  obligation 
incumbent  on  said  subjects  to  enter  the  military  service  in  their  own 
country  if  required  to  do  so  by  statute." 

The  Americans  have  amplifled  the  principles  of  natural  law,  claimiujit 
in  favor  of  their  absolute  neutrality,  that  as  a  man  must  remain  in 
peace  with  another  man  who  does  not  assault  him,  thus  also  a  nation 
must  behave  toward  anotls^r  nation. 

But  this  argument  is  not  right  in  the  present  case,  because  it  would 
assume  that  the  natural  law  is  false,  which  not  .only  does  not  incrimi 
uate  so  much  personal  defense  as  that  of  another  person  (a  principle 
which  has  been  adopted  by  our  statute,  article  14,  No.  3,  aud 
[401]  *other  articles  concurring  with  it,)  but  it  condemns  still  more,  as 
being  immoral,  the  fact  of  a  man  who  remains  an  indifferent 
looker-on  to  a  fight  between  two  of  his  fellow-creatures,  and  allows  one 
of  them  to  be  killed  or  severely  wounded,  when  it  is  in  his  power  to 
assist  him. 

But  there  is  nothing  therein  which  can  be  applied  to  service  on  board 
of  merchantmen  in  time  of  peace,  when  there  is  no  appearance  of  au} 
concealment  or  fraudulent  preparations  for  war. 

In  short,  this  crimination  involves  facts  of  different  gravity  and  dif 
ferent  character,  which  it  would  be  convenient  to  discriminate  from 
each  other,  and  to  punish  in  a  different  manner  according  to  the  char 
acter  of  the  offense,  which  would  be  consistent  with  justice,  but  cannot 
be  done  with  the  penal  provisions  of  the  article,  the  same  maximum  of 
punishment  being  enacted  for  all  offenses  under  said  article. 

With  regard  to  the  amendment  in  section  1,  we  consider  this  solution  as 
adequate  to  the  legislator.  When  the  recruiting  agent  is  a  foreigner, 
and  does  not  entertain  any  hostile  views  against  us,  the  most  proper 

course  is  to  expel  him  from  the  kingdom. 
[402]       And  this  penalty  has  not  the  same  *iuconvenience  as  the  above 


COUNTER   CASE   OF    THE   UNITED   STATES. 


73 


mentioned  ones,  because  being  only  temporarily  inflictetl,  without  dec 
laration,  the  foreigners  are  to  be  expelled  from  the  country  for  a  term 
of  years  not  to  exceed  twelve  years,  and  which  can,  according  to  cir 
ciunstauces,  be  reduced  to  three  years,  in  conformance  with  article  3G, 


m]    'No. : 


--EFFOKT.S  TO  PRESERVE  TliE  NEUI'RALITY  OF  THE  AZORES 
AND  MADEIRA. 


Mr,  Ilarreif,  Iniitcd  Staten  minister,  to  ^fr.  iStncard,  Secretary  of  State. 

[Extract.] 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Lisbon,  October  3,  18G2. 

Sill :  After  iuy  No.  157  was  dispatched  on  the  29th  ultimo,  I  had  a  per 
soual  interview  with  the  Viscount  Sada  Barrdeira,  the  minister  of  war, 
who  is  also  acting  as  minister  of  foreign  affairs  during  the  absence  of 
the  Marquis  de  Louie,  in  reference  to  the  outrages  at  the  Azores,  the 
conduct  of  the  Portuguese  authorities  there,  and  other  matters  con- 
nected with  the  general  subject.  I  carried  with  me  some  of  the  testi- 
mony bearing  on  the  important  points,  and  submitted  it  to  him  with 
explanator.y  comments. 

lie  was  frank  enough  to  say  that  the  islands  in  question  had  been 
used  and  abused  by  corsairs  and  pirates  during  centuries ;  that  they 
were  exposed  and  unprotected,  and  therefore  might  be  so  employed 
again ;  and  that  our  best  plan  would  bo  to  send  a  sufficient  force  there 
to  protect  American  ships  against  threatened  depredations  and 
1 404]  to  punish  criminal  *offenders.  I  informed  him  that  two  war- 
steamers  had  already  been  ordered  to  the  islands,  and  that  the 
sloop-of-war  Saint  Louis  was  ready  to  sail;  but  I  had  detained  her  a  day 
for  my  own  dispatches,  and  offered  him  that  opportunity  of  communi- 
cating with  the  Portuguese  oflBcials.  Ho  thanked  me  for  the  courtesy, 
but  said  it  would  be  impossible  to  prepare  any  instructions  within  the 
time  nam3d,  and  that  the  authorities  of  the  Azores  were  already  pos- 
sessed of  the  views  of  the  government  through  the  royal  proclamation 
of  last  year. 

I  called  his  attention  particularly  to  the  report  of  a  project  to  establish 
a  coal  depot  for  "confederate"  cruisers  on  the  islands,  saying  that  it 
was  part  of  a  plan  to  equip  and  arm  against  our  commerce  in  flagrant 
disregard  of  the  king's  proclamation.  It  was  agreed  between  us  that  I 
should  address  him  a  note  on  the  subject,  directing  attention  to  the 
points  most  requiring  prompt  consideration.  A  copy  of  that  note  is 
now  inclosed  for  your  information.  It  needs  no  explanation  at  my 
hands. 

^'o  effort  has  been  spared  and  no  precaution  neglected  which  care  and 
prudence  could  suggest  or  provide  for  this  emergency.    In  fact 
1405]    all  the  resources  at  my  disposal  or  discretion  *have  been  ex- 
hausted, and  I  may  say,  without  egotism,  at  lefist  energetically, 
if  not  wisely. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  E.  HARYEY. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


■  % 


?;    ;    J  ( 


f 


■1 

;l 


i  ■■  ''A 

1 

k 

;  5  ':!?» 

■''el 

mm! 

■ 

f  ■ 

J.. 

1 

'? 

74 


TREATY    OP   WASHINGTON PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 


Mr.  Harvey f  United  States  minister,  to  Mr.  Seicard,  Secretary  of  State. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Lisbon,  January  20,  1804. 

Sir*:  The  accompanying  copy  of  a  note  from  the  Duke  do  Soule,  itt 
answer  to  one  which   1  addressed  to  him  on  the  14th  instant,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  arininj?  of  piratical  cruisers  in  Portngnese  ports,  was  only 
received  hist  niy.ht,  thonj;h  (hited  on  the  IGtli  instant. 
1  have  the  honor  to  be,  ik,c., 

JA:MES  E.  HARVEY, 
lion.  Willia^i  II.  Sewakd, 

Secretary  of  State. 


V^l'i 


Mm 


III . 


1    ivi 


I  -  : 


f,< 


|IiicIumii'o.| 

Dule  de  I oul',  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  to  Mr.  llarcey.  United  States 

minister. 

[Translatiou.] 

Department  of  FoREiaN  Affairs, 

Lisbon,  January  10,  1804. 

[400)  *I  have  had  the  honor  of  receiving  the  note  which  you  weri' 
pleased  to  address  nie  nnder  date  of  the  14th  instant,  n'.aking 
known  to  me  the  information  you  had  received,  that  the  English  bark 
Agri|>pina  was  carrying  to  the  Azores  a  cargo  of  munitions  of  war  for 
the  supply  of  confederate  cruisers. 

Being  thus  apprised  of  the  contents  of  your  aforesaid  note,  it  is  my 
duty  to  inform  you  that  under  this  date,  I  address  the  ministers  of 
the  interior,  linance,  war,  and  navy  departments,  iu  order  that,  w'ith  all 
urgent  speed,  they  may  adoi)tthe  most  energetic  measures  to  prevent  the 
furnishing  of  such  articles  to  confederate  vessels. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  renew  the  assurances  of  my 
most  distinguished  consideration. 

DUKE  DE  LOUL15. 

James  E.  Harvey,  Esq.,  li-c,  d-c,  tt-c. 


The  Duke  de  Louie,  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  to  Mr.  Uarrcy,  United 

States  minister. 

[Translation.] 

Department  of  Foreign  Affairs, 

lAsbon,  January  23,  1804. 

[407J  With  reference  to  the  note  which  you  were  "pleased  to  address 
me  under  date  of  the  14th  instant,  requesting  that  preventive 
measures  might  be  adopted  with  regard  to  the  English  bark  Agrippiiia, 
livhich,  according  to  information,  purposed  carrying  to  the  Azores  a 
cargo  of  munitions  of  war  for  supplying  the  confederate  cruisers,  it  is 
my  duty  to  inform  you  that  the  minister  of  the  interior  has  advised  me, 
in  his  communication  of  the  20th  instant,  as  having  forwarded,  on  that 
same  date,  to  the  civil  governors  of  the  district  of  the  Azores  and  Ma 
deira,  ii portario,  of  which  a  copy  will  be  found  inclosed. 


COUNTER   CASE   OF    THE    UNITED    STATES. 


75 


B3'  the  contents  thereof,  yon  will  perceive  that  proper  instructions 
have  been  furnished  to  the  aforesaid  authorities  to  enable  them  to  thwart 
the  intentions  and  8i>eculations  of  all  corsairs  inimical  to  the  United 
States. 

Tiiese  same  onlers  may,  for  greater  speed,  bo  forwarded  by  the  cor- 
vette Saint  Louis,  as  you  propose,  and  to  this  end  1  have  the  honor  of 
transaiittiug  the  same  to  30U  to  be  sent  to  their  tlestination. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  renew  the  assurance  of  my  most 
distinguished  consideration. 

DUKE  Dli:  LOULT^:. 

James  E.  ITativev,  rfr.,  rfv. 


'■I 


[40.^1  '[Inclosure.] 

Instructions  to  the  governors  of  the  Axores  and  Madeira. 

[Translation.] 

Ministry  of  the  Interior,  Second  Department, 

LiaOon,  Royal  Palace,  January  20,  1SG4. 

The  inclosed  authentic  copy  of  a  note  from  the  minister  of  the  United 
States  of  America  at  this  court,  having  made  known  that  the  Englisli 
bark  Agrippina  conteinplates  carrying  to  the  Azores  a  cargo  of  muni- 
tions of  war  for  supplying  confetlerate  cruisers,  which  are  to  go  there 
to  receive  them,  in  order  to  continue  their  depredations  on  the  com-  , 
merce  of  the  United  States  in  the  same  manner  as  the  aforesaid  bark 
did  before  in  1802,  in  the  bay  of  Angra,  ami  it  being  further  made 
known  that  the  parties  implicated  in  these  nefarious  undertakings  pro- 
pose to  establish  a  regular  de|»ot  in  one  or  more  of  the  smaller  ports  in 
the  said  islands,  with  the  view  of  organizing  therein  armed  expeditions 
lioatile  to  the  aforesaid  Uniteil  States,  His  Majesty  the  King  desires 
that  a  knowledge  of  the  alx»ve  be  con»municated  to  the  civil  governor 
of  the  district  of  Angra  de  Heroismo,  and  ordains  that,  taking  into  his 
most  serious  consideration  the  contents  of  the  above-mentioned  note, 
and  the  reclamation  therein  contained,  the  same  civil  governor  shall 
adopt  all  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  to  completely 
[409]  *put  a  stop  to  the  aforesjiid  «lesigns  and  intentions  on  the  part 
of  the  enemies  of  said  United  States  ;  and  for  this  purpose  he  ia 
to  co-operate  with  the  directors  of  custom  houses  and  captains  of  ports 
within  the  district  under  his  charge,  so  as  to  act  with  a  mutual  accord, 
to  which  effect  orders,  with  strong  recommeiulation,  have  been  sent  to 
them  through  the  respective  departments.  An  immediate  account  is  to 
be  rendered,  through  the  department,  of  all  that  may  be  done  or  put 
into  practice  on  this  subject,  with  the  understanding  that  His  Majesty 
makes  the  civil  governor  and  bis  subordinates  responsible  for  any 
neglect  or  omission  in  such  a  grave  and  delicate  affair. 

DUKE  DE  LOULr^. 

True  copy. 

OLYMPIO  JOAQUIN  DE  OLIVERIA. 

Department  of  Foreign  Affairs,  January  23, 18C4. 


True  copy : 


EMILIO  ACHILLES  MONTEVERDE. 


Ml 


u 


li:! 


{;:. 


J  a  i- 


l1 


76 


TREATi'   OF    WASHINGTON PAPERS    ACCOMPANYING 


The  Dvle  fie  Ta)uU^  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  to  Mr.  Harvey,  minister  of 

the  United  States. 

[TrarB'atlon.] 

DEPART^raNT  OF  FOREIGN  AFFAIRS, 

January  23, 1864. 
In  addition  to  my  note  of  this  day's  date,  I  have  the  honor  of  inform- 
ing you  that  throngh  the  navy  dej)artment  the  most  positive 
1 410]    orders  have  been  tran8*initted  to  all  the  authorities  dependent 
on  the  said  department,  in  the  sense  of  your  note  addressed  to 
mo  under  date  of  the  14th  instant,  and  that  probably  a  man-of-war  will 
start  for  the  Azores  to  aid  the  aforesaid  authorities. 

I  avail  of  this  opportunity'  to  renew  the  assnrauces  of  my  most  dis- 
tinguished consideration. 

DUKE  DE  LOULTO. 
James  E.  ITarvey,  Esq. 


>i 


Mr.  Harvey,   United  States  minister,  to  the   Duke  de  Louie,  minister  of 

foreign  affairs. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Lisbon,  January  25,  1864. 

Sir  :  1  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  your  note  of  the  23d  instant, 
communicating  a  copy  of  a  portario,  addressed  to  the  civil  governors  of 
the  Azores  and  Madeira,  founded  upon  representations  made  by  me  in 
reference  to  the  designs  and  movements  of  certain  piratical  cruisers, 
reported  as  intending  to  rendezvous  and  equip  at  the  island  possessions 
of  His  Majesty  against  the  commerce  of  the  United  States. 

It  is  my  duty  and  pleasure  to  say  that  the  instructions  contained  in 

that  portario  are  consistent  with  the  friendship  and  good  feeling  which 

has  so  long  and  happily  subsisted  between  Portugal  and  the  United 

States,  and  which  it  is  to  be  hoped  may  not  only  be  still  longer 

|411]    continued,  but  united  even  more  closely  *and  strongly. 

The  United  States  ship  St.  Louis  sailed  yesterday  for  the 
Azores  direct,  intending  subsequently  to  touch  at  Madeira.  Her  com- 
mander is  charged  to  deliver,  personally,  the  dispatches  to  the  various 
authorities  at  the  islands,  which  your  excellency,  at  my  suggestion,  ad- 
dressed to  my  care. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  tender  the  assurances  of  ray  most 
distinguished  consideration. 

JAMES  E.  HAEVEY. 

His  Excellency  the  Duke  de  LouLti, 

Minister  and  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs. 


Mr.  Harvey,  United  States  minister,  to  Mr.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State. 

[Extract.] 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Lisbon,  January  30, 1864. 

Sir:  The  Duke  de  Louie  addressed  me  a  fourth  note,  (of  which  a  eopy 
in  translation  is  inclosed,)  yesterday,  on  the  subject  of  my  recent  repre- 


COUNTER   CASE   OF   THE    UNITED    .STATES. 


77 


seiitatioii,  ami  from  which  it  appears  that  the  entire  authority  of  every 
department  of  His  Majesty's  ffovornment  has  now  been  seriously  and 
energetically  invoked  to  prevent  rebel  cruisers  from  arming  or  e(pilppiug 
in  the  island  ports  of  this  kingdom. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  &c., 

.TAMKS  E.  IIAIIVKV. 
Hon.  William  V.  Sewakd, 

bev  'tary  of  State. 


u  t  n 


[412J    *  Tlu-  nuke  (Ic   Louli,  mbmter  of  foreign  a^iiirx,  to  Mr.  Ilarveify 

Ignited  States  minister. 

[Translation.] 

J)ErAKTMENT  OE  FOREIGN  AFFAIRS, 

January  29,  1864. 

I  have  the  honor  of  infm-ming  you,  in  addition  to  my  notes  of  the  23d 
instant,  that  the  minister  of  ftuance  informs  me,  in  a  communication  of 
tbe  20th  instant,  that  on  the  same  day  the  most  positive  orders  were 
being  sent  to  the  directors  of  custom-houses  iu  the  Azores  Islands,  to 
the  ettect  of  their  adopting,  under  the  severest  responsibility,  all  such 
measures  as  may  be  within  their  reuch,  to  prevent  confederate  vessels 
from  supplying  themselves  with  munitions  oi'  war  in  the  custom-ports  of 
said  archipelago. 

It  is  my  duty  further  to  inform  you  that  the  minister  of  war  has 
advised  me  under  that  .same  date  that,  notwithstanding  the  orders 
already  transmitted  to  the  general  commanding  the  tenth  military 
division,  which  were  communicated  to  you  on  the  2d  December,  1862, 
he  now  again  recommends  the  aforesaid  general  to  employ  the  utmost 
vigilance,  and  to  give  his  most  positive  orders,  .so  as,  by  cooperating 
with  all  the  other  local  authorities,,  to  frustrate  all  plans  and  attempts 
of  the  confederates,  and  thus  maintain  a  rigorous  compliance  with  the 
decree  of  July  29,  1861. 

I  renew  on  this  occasion  the  assurances  of  my  most  distinguished 
consideration. 

DUKE  DE  hOlJLV:. 

Jame.'<  E.  Hakvey,  E.sq. 


'5    t  ■   !    ■ 


■y 


im 


h 


[ll.ij    *Mr.  Harvey,  United  States  minister,  to  Mr.  Seicard,  Secretary  of 

State. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Lisbon,  lebrnary  2,  1864.  • 
Sir  :  i  transmit  herewith  a  copy  of  a  note  (iu  translation)  which  the 
Duke  de  Soule  has  addressed  to  me,  stating  the  Portuguese  war-steamer 
Mindello  had  been  dispatched  to  the  Azores  to  carry  out  practically  the 
recent  assurances  of  His  Majesty's  government  of  an  intention  to  pre- 
vent the  arming  or  equipment  ot  piratical  cruisers  in  Portuguese  porta 
against  the  commerce  of  the  United  States. 
1  have  the  honor  to  be,  &c., 

JAMES  E.  HARVEY. 
Uoo.  Wm.  H.  Seward, 
Secretary  of  State, 


I  ■■■is 


■ii 


! 


'i 


78 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 


...  ' 


■I 


Ijll* 


Tlie  Dulo  dc  Louie,  minister  of  forciqn  affairs,  to  Mr.  Harvey,  United 

States  minister. 

^    [Translation.]  • 

])EPARTMENT  OF  rORFlUN  AFFAIRL% 

January  2'J,  1SG4. 

In  addition  to  the  notes  addressed  you  on  the  23d  and  2Uth  instant,  I 
liave  now  the  honor  to  inform  yon  that  on  the  20th  instant  tlie  Portu- 
guese steamer  of  war  Mindello  h^l't  this  port  bound  for  tlie  Azores,  in 
order  to  superintend  the  execution  of  the  orders  transmitted  to  the 
respective  autiiorities  regarding  the  punctual  compliance  with 
[4141    the  decree  *of  July  21),  1803. 

,.     t-^^s*  I  rene\/  on  this  occasion  the  assurances  of  my  distinguished 
consideration. 

DUKE  DE  L0UL15. 

James  E.  Harvey,  Esq. 


No.  3.-LIMITATI0N  OF  ASYLUM  TO  THE  FLORIDA  AT  FUNCHAL. 

Mr.  Harvey,  United  States  minister,  to  Mr.  Seicard,  Secretary  of  State. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Lisbon,  May  24, 18C4. 

Sir  :  I  transmit  herewith  translations  of  various  correspondence  be- 
tween the  authorities  of  the  island  of  Madeira,  the  commander  of  the 
rebel  cruiser  Florida,  and  the  United  States  vice-consul,  in  reference 
to  the  supplies  which  were  furnished  to  the  Florida  at  Funchal  in 
February  last. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  &c., 

JAMES  E.  HAKVEY. 
Hon.  Wm.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


i  I 


[415]  '[Inclosnre.] 

Oorernor  Perdigao  to  the  captain  of  the  port  of  Funchal. 

[Translation.] 

Civil  Government  of  Funchal, 

February  2S.  1864. 

Most  Excellent  Sir  :  I  have  just  been  informed,  by  an  official  com- 
murication  from  yourself,  that  the  ship  Florida,  a  South  American 
corsair,  sailing  under  the  so  called  flag  of  the  Confederate  States,  whi(;h 
have  not  been  recognized  by  us,  has  entered  and  is  now  at  anchor  in 
this  port. 

In  view  of  the  decree  of  the  29th  July,  18G1,  a  vessel  in  those  circum- 
stances can  only  enter  the  ports  of  Portugal  when  compelled  thereto  by 
foree  majeure ;  and  as  such  case  has  not  happened,  nor  is  it  invoked  by 
the  commander  of  said  vessel  to  legalize  or  justify  his  stay  in  this  port, 
I  find  myself  comx)elled,  in  vouformity  to  the  la.r,  and  in  obedience  to  all 


^1 


COUNTER   CASE   OF   THE    UNITED   STATES. 


79 


those  principles  of  loyalty  which  are  duo  to  the  flag  of  a  friendly  nation, 
to  request  that  your  excellency  will  be  pleased  to  intimate  to  the  afore- 
said commander  to  leave  this  port  with  all  possible  speed. 

Your  excellency  will  be  pleased  to  keep  me  informed  of  all  that  may 
occur  in  carrying  out  the  present  commission. 
God  preserve  your  excellency. 
The  civil  governor. 

JACINTIIO  ANTONIO  PERDIGAO. 
His  Excellency  the  Captain 

Of  the  Port  of  Funchal 


[416]  •[Iiiclosnre.]  • 

The  captain  of  the  port  of  Funchal  to  Governor  Perdigao. 

[TrjiDsliition.J 

Funchal,  February  28, 18C4. 
Most  Excellent  Sir  :  In  compliance  with  the  orders  received  from 
your  excellency,  I  have  intimated  to  the  commander  of  the  war-steamer 
Florida  to  leave  this  port  within  twenty-four  hours,  and  in  reply  to  said 
intiiuatioii  1  have  received  from  said  officer  a  communication,  of  which 
I  have  the  honor  of  transmitting  a  copy  to  your  excellency,  wherein  the 
said  commander  declares  he  was  forced  to  come  into  this  port  in  want  of 
wnter,  bread,  and  coals,  and  that  consequently  it  is  impossible  for  him 
to  quit  this  port  without  those  articles.  Your  excellency  will  decide 
Avliiitever  is  Just,  au<l  1  await  your  excellency's  orders  ou  this  head. 
God  preserve  your  excellency. 

JOAQUIN  PEDRO  DE  CASTELBRANCO, 
Post-Captain  R.  N.,  and  Captain  of  the  Port. 
His  Excellency  Dn.  Jacintho  Antonio  Perdigao, 

CidH  Governor  of  the  Funchal  District. 


1 

.  ■ 

I 
i 

I  'i  ■ 


i 


[luclosnro.] 


Lieutenant  Morris  to  the  captain  of  the  port. 

Confederate  States  Steamer  Florida, 

Off  Funcha I,  February  2S,  1864 . 

j[4l7]  *SiR:  In  answer  to  your  request  that  I  should  leave  this  port 
immediately,  I  have  to  state  that  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  com- 

I  ply.  I  would  state  that  I  arrived  here  last  night  at  11  o'clock,  and  am 
out  of  coal,  and  require  water  and  bread,  and  do  hereby  enter  my  pro- 
test against  being  forced  to  leave  without  the  above-mentioned  neces- 

Uai'ies,  and  must  tiecline  doing  so.  Should  any  mishap  befall  this  vessel 
while  out  of  fuel,  your  government  will  be  responsible  for  the  same.  It 
is  actually  necessary  to  Imvo  coal,  not  only  for  the  purpose  of  propelling 
tho  vessel,  but  also  to  make  fresh  water,  as  this  vessel  carries  a  very 


m 


^1 


^1 


I 


III 


f:lj 


80 


TKKATV    or    WASHINGTON J'Al'EKS    ACCOAII'ANYINU 


small  (|iiantity  of  tlio  latter.  I  ouly  ask  for  what  the  English,  Frfiiicli, 
UpauiHli,  and  Jirazilian  governments,  and  also  your  own  government, 
have  already  granted  to  onr  vessels. 

1  have  the  honor  to  be  your  most  obedient  servant, 

C.  MAUUGAULT  MORKIH, 

Lieutenant  Commandiny. 
Captain  JoAQUiN  Pedro  de  Castelhranc;o, 

.   Captain  of  the  Port  of  Funchal,  dr. 


[418J 


[ItlcloHlUC] 

Captain  of  the  port  to  Governor  Perdigao. 
[Trausliition.] 

FUNCIIAL,  February  liU,  1804. 
MoHT  Excellent  Sir  :  I  communicated  your  *excellency's 
order  to  the  commander  of  the  steamer  Florida,  said  orders  be 
ing  to  the  ett'ectthat  lie  might  acquire  the  provisions  and  water  required 
to  |)roceed  on  his  voyage,  and  that  with  regard  to  coal,  your  excellency 
only  allowed  him  to  take  twenty  tons.  In  reply  I  have  this  day 
received  a  communication  from  said  officer,  of  which  I  have  tho 
honor  of  transmitting  you  a  copy  inclosed,  wherein  said  commander 
states  he  cannot  proceed  on  his  voyage  without  taking  in  forty  tons  of 
coal. 

A  short  time  after  my  receiving  this  coniraunictition,  this  ofWcer  caino 
to  me,  and  I  then  made  known  to  him  your  excellency's  positive  orders, 
aiul  he  at  last  agreed  to  leave  this  evening,  taking  only  the  twenty  tons 
of  coals  allowed  by  your  excellency,  declaring  that  he  would  not  pro 
ceed  to  sea  under  these  circumstances  should  any  war  steamer  of  the 
United  States  make  her  appearance  in  sight  at  the  moment  of  his  leav 
ing  the  port. 
Clod  preserve  your  excellency. 

JOAQU  IN  PEDRO  DE  CASTELBRANCO, 

PoHt-Captain  and  Captain  of  the  Port. 

nis  Excellency  the  Civil  Governor 

Of  the  Funchal  District. 


[Inclosure.] 
Lieutenant  Morris  to  the  ca2)tain  of  the  port. 

Confederate  States  Steamer  Florida, 

Funchal,  February  29,  1864. 

[410]       *SiR :  Your  letter  of  the  28th  instant,  in  answer  to  a  commu 
nication  which  you  received  from  me  of  tho  same  date,  setting  I 
forth  the  reasons  for  my  not  leaving  this  port,  &c.,  has  been  received,] 
You  state  that  his  excellency  the  governor  consents  to  my  being  sup- 
plied with  bread,  water,  and  twenty  tons  of  coals  to  enable  this  vessel] 
to  proceed  to  the  high  seas. 
I  will  state  that  1  require  forty  tons  of  coal  to  reach  the  nearest  port  | 
I  am,  sir,  with  much  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

C.  MARUGAULT  MORRIS, 
Lieutenant  Commanding^  C.  3.  N. 
Joaquin  Pedro  de  Castelbranco, 

Captain  of  the  torff  dr. 


COUNTER    CASK    OF   TIIK    rMTKI)    STATES. 


81 


[Inclosnrc] 

(ioi'i'rni>r  Pvrdhjnn  to  the  chptaln  <>/  the  port. 

[TraiiHlivtion.] 

Civil  (Joveunment  of  Fuxohal, 

Fvbruarif  21),  18G4. 

>rosT  '.Excellent  Sir:  On  view  of  your  coinnmnication,  whoroiii  yon 
iiitoriii  inc  that  yon  had  intimated  to  the  commander  of  tliesliip  Florida — 
Soiitii  American  corsair — to  (juit  this  port,  and  make  known  liis  reply, 
whereby  he  aiU'jyes  the  existence  of/orct'  majeure  in  Ids  being  short  of  i)ro- 
visions,  water,  and  coals  to  navigate,  it  is  my  duty  to  iidorm  you  that  1 
consider  that  ship  only  entitled  to  protection  under  the  ^t^'iit'nU 
i  L'()|  *lawsof  humanity;  and  I  understand  that,  accordinjito  said  laws, 
we  need  not  deny  to  any  one  the  uecessary  means  of  subsistence,  and 
therefore  ayree  to  his  being  furnished  with  such  provisions  and  water 
as  lie  may  re(iuire,  but  cannot  do  the  same  with  regard  to  coals ;  whereas 
said  shi|)  being  built  on  the  mixed  system,  and  being  therefore  enabled 
to  navigate  by  means  of  her  sails,  as  she  no  doubt  has  already  done, 
and  as  is  evident  from  the  fact  of  her  having  taken  eighteen  days  in 
loining  from  Brest  to  this  i^ort :  and  it  not  being  consistent  with  my 
duty  that  she  should,  within  the  territory  contided  to  me,  be  permitted 
to  furnish  herself  with  that  article  in  a  greater  quantity  than  what  is 
necessary  for  her  to  leave  this  port,  attain  such  a  distance  oil'  as  not  to 
l»o  prejudiced  by  the  ship  of  war  of  the  United  States  which  is  likewise 
now  at  anchor  in  this  port,  and  for  the  purpose  of  cooking  on  board,  I 
think  that  I  am  only  authorized  in  allowing  her  to  be  furnished  with 
twenty  tons  of  coal;  which  quantity,  although  not  sufficient  to  put 
I  her  in  a  position  of  causing  damage,  is  nevertheless  sufficient  to  avert 
any  danger  to  which  she  might,  by  chance,  be  exposed  on  leaving 
[this  pore. 

In  this  sense  your  excellency  will  be  pleased  to  communicate  with  the 
I  commander  of  the  aforesaid  corsair  and  apprise  me  of  the  result. 

God  preserve  your  excellency. 
\m  I       *The  Civil  Governor, 

JACINTHO  ANTOXIO  PERDIGAO. 

His  Excellency  the  Captain 

0/  the  Port  o/FuncJial. 


[IncloBure.] 

Oovernor  Perdigao  to  tlie  director  of  customs. 

[Translation.] 

Civil  Government  op  Funchal, 

February  29, 1864. 
it  port.  ■  j(Qg.p  Illustrious  Sir  :  Having  been  informed  by  the  captain  of 
[liis  port  that  the  commander  of  the  ship  Florida — South  American 
lorsair — now  at  anchor  here,  had  declared  himself  unable  to  leave  this 
Wt  in  compliance  with  the  intimation  made  to  him  by  my  orders,  seeing 
jliat  he  was  in  want  of  provisions,  water,  and  coals ;  and  I  having  re- 
]<)lved  that  in  view  of  the  duties  of  humanity,  which  must  be  extended 
6  a— II 


I 


K 


83 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON PAPKUS    ACCOMI    kNYINO 


to  him  and  which  <lo  not  coinpromiso  other  dutit'.s,  o(|iinIl,y  Hiicred,  of 
h)yalty  toward  the  tlapf  of  a  friendly  nation,  he  shonhl  be  permitted  to 
furnisli  liimself  with  whatever  inovisions  and  water  he  may  require,  niiU 
with  twenty  tons  of  coal,  wlu(;h  1  consider  sufficient  to  enable  him  to 
leave  this  port  w  ithout  danjjer,  and  to  cook  provisions  on  board,  1  now 
inform  you  hereof  in  order  that  you  maj'  be  pleased  to  authorize  tlic 
shipment  of  tiie  said  quantity  of  coal,  and  usin^  supervision  in  not 
allowing  these  limits  to  be  exceeded. 

(lod  preserve  vou. 
f4!i2J       •The  Civil  (WAernor, 

JACINTIK)  ANTONIO  IVEKDIOAO. 

Most  Illustrious  Dirkctor  of  Customs,  Fmivhal. 


[Inclosiuc] 


Ciovernor  renlit/ao  to  thr  I'nUiul  Sttitvs  consul. 


[Tiiinslation.j 


Civil  Ciovkrnment  of  Funciial, 

February '1%  1801. 

Most  Illli  stkious  Sir  :  I  have  the  satisAictiou  of  informing  you 
that  the  comnuiuder  of  the  ship  Florida  ySouth  American  corsair)  has, 
according  to  the  communication  of  the  port  captain  and  his  own  verbal 
declaration  to  me,  in  the  presence  of  two  persons,  accepted  the  conces 
sion  granted  to  liim  for  furnishing  himself  with  provisions  and  wator 
which  he  needs,  and  twenty  tons  of  coal,  the  latter  having  been  agreed 
with  you  and  I  having  consented  thereto,  as  a  sulhcient  quantity  to 
enable  him  to  leave  the  i)ort  and  place  himself  at  such  a  distance  as  not 
to  fear  his  being  harmed  by  the  American  corvette  of  war  now  lying  in  this 
port,  and  for  purposes  of  cooking  on  board ;  and  the  said  commander  has 
compromised  to  leave  this  evening,  provided  that  up  to  the  mo- 
[423]  ment  of  quitting  no  American  war-steamer  shall  heave  in  *sigbt. 
in  which  case  he  desires  and  requires  to  keep  himself  under  the  pro 
tection  of  th«>.  tlag  in  whose  waters  he  is  now^  riding  at  anchor.  He. 
however,  has  asked  me  that,  following  the  example  of  what  is  done  in  tho 
portsof  other  nations,  all  means  might  be  employed  toward  obtaining  that  j 
the  United  States  war-ship  in  this  port  may  only  leave  this  port  twenty 
four  hours  after  his  departure ;  and  it  being  my  desire  to  maintain  com 
I)lete  impartiality,  thus  communicate  the  same  to  you,  hoping  that  you 
will  agree  with  the  commander  of  the  American  corvette  now  here,  so  i 
as  to  comply  with  the  said  request,  which  I  consider  reasonable  and  in  I 
harmony  with  those  principles  of  equity  which  are  due  to  all. 

Be  pleased  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  the  present  dispatch  and  to| 
reply  thereon  as  you  think  fit. 

God  preserve  you. 

The  Civil  Governor, 

JACINTHO  ANTONIO  PERDIGAO. 

Most  Illustrious  Vice-Consul 

of  the  United  States. 


COUNTKR   CASK    OF    TIIK    rNITEI)    STATKS. 


83 


[.['ii]  •LIiicloHiiri'.] 

The  captain  of  >he  port  to  (torenmr  Pn-digao. 
[TriuiHliition.] 

Fi  NCIIAL,  March  1,  1.S04. 

Most  Exckllknt  Siu :  1  have  tlio  honor  of  informiii};  your  excel- 
lency that  the  Aineilciiu  steamer  Florida  left  the  port  last  nisht,  about 
8.30  p.  III.,  having  received  the  provisions  and  water  which  she  desired 
and  the  twenty  tons  of  coals  which  y«)nr  excellency  jierniitted  lier  to 
take. 
(lod  preserve  vour  excellencv. 

JOAQUIN  PEDRO  DF  CASTKLIiUANCO, 

Post-Captain  H.  A.  and  Vaptain  of  the  Port. 

His  Excellency  Don  Jacintiio  Antonio  I'eudkjao, 

Cii'il  iiorvrnor  of  the  District  of  FunchaK 


(». 


r> 


II 


No.  4.— CASE  OF  THE  STONEWALL  AT  LISItON. 

Mr.  Harvey,  United  States  minister,  to  Mr.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State. 

Lecsation  of  the  United  States, 

Lisbon,  March  L'8,  18(;.">. 

Silt:  I  have  the  honor  t<)  inform  yon  that  the  rebel  cni'^jor 
142.')]  Stonewall,  a  most  formidable  iron-clad  ship,  •entered  thisjjo  ♦  on 
Sunday  eveninfj,  the  20th  instant,  having  left  Ferrol  the  pre- 
vious daj\  As  the  flag  which  w  i-;  llanute«l  from  her  mast-head  was  en 
tirely  unknown  here,  and  somewliat  resembles  that  of  the  IJussian  .service, 
she  was  generally  suppo  ihI  to  belong  to  that  navy ;  and,  in  fact,  the  real 
character  of  the  vessel  was  not  ascertained  positively  until  the  next 
morning,  when  certain  individuals,  calling  them.selves  officers,  published 
their  disloyalty  in  the  streets  in  gray  uniform  and  arrogant  language. 

As  soon  as  I  was  informed  of  the  identity  of  the  craft,  immediate 
steps  were  taken,  personally,  to  have  her  ordered  out  of  port,  and  thej* 
were  followed  later  in  the  day  by  a  formal  note  to  Duke  de  J.ouh',  now 
inclosed,  (marked  A,)  which  will  explain  itself. 

As.surances  were  given  without  hesitation  that  the  vessel  would  be 
required  to  depart  within  twenty-four  hours;  and   I   have  occasion  to 
I  know  that  the  orders  were  at  once  unide,  and  the  notice  officially  com- 
1  nuuiicated  to  the  Stonewall. 

Large  inducements  were  held  out  to  procure  enlistments  in  Lisbon. 
As  much  as  £10  sterling  monthly  wages,  and  jC1."»  bounty  were  ottered, 
liiit  only  one  misguided  and  dissipated  victim  was  secured,  and  he  bj'  a 
process  of  kidnapping.  The  fact  only  came  to  light  too  late  to  be 
visited  with  the  penalty'  which  I  should  certainly  have  assisted  in  see- 
ing enforced. 
[426]  *I  also  communicate  herewith,  marked  E,  a  copy  in  translation 
of  the  note  of  the  Duke  de  Louie,  in  reply  to  mine  of  yester- 
1  day's  date. 

These  papers  and  this  general  statement  concerning  the  cruiser  Stone- 
wall since  her  presence  in  the  Tagus  will  enable  the  President  and  the 
j  Department  to  appreciate  understandiugly  the  official  proceedings  which 
I  were  adopted  to  meet  an  exceptional  and  vexatious  emergency. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  E.  HAKVEY. 
Hon.  Wm.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


■'h 


^m 


-n*  , 


■  if'i 


Ml ''I 


84 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON rAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 


^l  ■ 


II 


,!:     : 


DuJ<e  de  Louh',  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  to  Mr.  Harvey,  Cnited  Status 

minister. 

Department  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs, 

March  L'S,  1805. 

Sir :  I  received  the  note  which  jou  \v ore  pleased  to  address  me,  imdor 
yesterday's  date,  regarding  the  entry  in  this  port  of  the  steamer  Stout'- 
wall,  wherein,  alter  snndry  considerations  on  this  occnrreuce,  you  make 
the  following  requests : 

1.  That  His  Majesty's  government  shall  immediately  take  the  neces 
sary  steps  to  order  that  vessel  away. 

L*.  That  she  be  not  allowed  to  receive  supplies  of  coal. 

3,  That  the  enlistment  of  seamen,  firemen,  or  any  other  individuals 
be  prevented. 
[427]  *In  reply  I  have  the  honor  of  informing  you  that,  so  soon  as  His 
Majesty's  government  was  made  aware  of  the  arrival  of  said  ves- 
sel, and  that  the  cause  thereof  was  the  want  of  coal,  intiuuitioii  was 
given  to  the  respective  commander  that  on  completing  his  sui>ply,  and 
within  tweutyfonr  hours,  ho  should  proceed  to  sea.  Said  term  expired 
this  afternoon.  On  perceiving  this  morning  that  the  vessel  was  still  at 
her  anchorage,  a  naval  oflicer  was  sent  on  board  to  ascertain  the  reason 
why  she  had  delayed  her  starting.  The  said  officer,  on  his  return,  stated 
that  if  the  Stonewall  had  not  started  within  the  prescribed  time,  it  was 
owing  to  her  not  having  taken  in  all  the  coal,  and  there  being  to-day  a 
strong  current  the  commander  was  afraid  that  a  slight  derangement  in 
his  capstan  might  prevent  his  weighing  anchor ;  and  the  latter  further 
declared  that  as  soon  as  the  current  might  diminish  its  intensity  he 
would  quit  the  port,  and  this  he  ett'ected  about  10.50  a.  m. 

Eegarding  the  supply  of  coal,  against  which  you  insist,  allow  me  U> 
observe  that  the  vessel  being  a  steamer  His  Majesty's  government  could 
not  avoid,  with  good  foundation,  that  she  shoukl  be  provided  with  that 
article,  for  the  same  reason  that  it  could  not  deny  to  any  sailing-vessel, 
in  a  dismantled  state,  to  provide  itself  with  the  needful  sails.  In  reply 
to  your  third  request,  and  to  what  you  say  regarding  the  English 
[428]  brig  *Fairline  and  the  schooner  Mertou  Castle,  which  were  about 
sailing  for  Lisbon  with  munitions  of  war,  chains,  and  anchors 
supposed  to  be  destined  for  the  Stonewall,  I  hasten  to  assure  you  that 
His  Majesty's  government,  having  greatly  at  heart  not  to  give  any  mo- 
tive which  might  alter  the  friendly  relations  and  the  good  harmony 
which  happily  subsists  between  Portugal  and  the  United  States,  has 
not  hesitated  in  adopting  all  necessary  measures,  through  the  depart- 
ments of  marine,  interior,  and  finance,  to  put  a  stop  to  all  such  plans. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  renew  the  assurances  of  my  most 
distinguished  consideration. 

DUKE  DE  LOULE. 

James  E.  Harvey,  Esq.,  &c.,  (be,  &c. 


« 


[431] 


*I  v.  — BRAZIL. 

CODIGO  CRIMINAL. 


Parte  II. — Dos  crimes  publicos. 

TiTULO  I. — Doa.  crimes  contra  a  existencia  politica  do  imperio. 
Capitulo  I. — Dos  crimes  contra  aindependencia,  integridade  c  dig 
nidade  da  na^'ao. 

Art.  C9.  Provocar,  directamente  e  por  factos,  uma  na^aoestrangeira 


'■"Sj 


COUNTER   CASE    OF   THE    UNITED    STATES. 


85 


les,  lias 


TLE. 


ingeira 


a  (Icclarar  a  giiorra  ao  imperio,  se  tal  tleclara(;rio  se  veiificar  e  se  seguir 


a  jjiierra 


Venas. — No  grau  maximo,  dezoito  anuos  de  prissio  com  trabalho.  No 
gran  medio,  doze  annos,  idem.    No  grau  r.  inimo,  seis  aunos,  idem. 

Se  da  provocaoilo  iiao  se  seguir  a  declarayao  da  guerra,  ou  se  este, 
posto  que  declarada,  se  ujio  veiificar,  ficaudo  a  na<;rio  sem  damno  ou 
projuizo  : 

I'enas. — No  grau  niaxiiuo,  seis  annos  de  prisao  com  trabalho. 
j432]    No  gran  medio,  quatio  auuos,  idem.     No  *grau  miuimo,  dous 
annos,  idem. 

Se  para  ufio  se  veiificar  a  guerra  declarada,  em  consequencia  da  pro- 
vocaj^iio,  por  preciso  algum  sacriftcio  da  ua9iio,  em  prejuizo  de  sua  iii- 
tegridade,  dignidade  ou  interesses : 

Fenas. — No  gran  maximo,  doze  annos  de  prisao  com  trabalho.  No 
<,'rau  medio,  sete  anuos  e  seis  mezes,  idem.  No  gran  miuimo,  tres  annos, 
h\em. 

Art.  73.  Commetter,  sem  ordem  ou  autorisa^ilo  do  goveruo,  hostili- 
(ladescoutra  os  subditos  de  outra  iiayao,  de  maneiia  que  se  comprometta 
a  ])az  ou  provoquera  represalias  : 

Fenas. — No  gran  maximo,  doze  annos  de  prisao  com  trabalho.  No 
gran  medio,  seis  annos  e  seis  mezes,  idem.  No  grau  miuimo,  urn  auno, 
idem. 

Se,  por  t.al  procedimento,  algum  brasileiro  soifrer  algum  mal,  sera  o 
rc'O  cousiderado  autor  delle,  e  punido  com  as  penas  correspoudeutes 
alem  da  sobredita. 

Art.  74.  Violar  tratados  legitimameute  feitos  com  as  ua^aoes  estran- 
iioiras  : 


Fenas. — No 


grau 


maximo,  seis  anuos  de  prisao.      No  gran 


[133]    medio,  tres  aunos  e  seis  mezes,  idem.  No  gran  *minimo,  um  auno, 
idem. 

Art.  82.  Exercitar  pirataria ;  e  este  crime  julgar-se  ha  commettido : 

§  1".  Practicaudo  no  mar  qualquer  acto  de  depreda«*ao  ou  de  violencia, 
qner  contra  brasileiros  ou  contra  estrangeiros  con  quern  o  Brasil  ufio 
e.steja  em  guerra; 

§  2".  Abusando  da  carta  de  corso,  legitimameute  concedida,  para  prac- 
ticar  hostilidades,  ou  contra  uavios  brasileiros  ou  de  outras  nayoes,  que 
nao  fosse  autorisado  para  hostilisar; 

Fenas. — No  grau  maximo,  gales  perpetuas.  No  grau  medio,  vinte  an- 
nos de  prisao  com  trabalho.    No  gran  miuimo,  dez  annos,  idem. 

§  G".  Aceitando  carta  de  corso  de  um  goveruo  cstrangeiro  sem  compe- 
teiite  autorisa<;no : 

Venas. — No  grau  maximo,  oito  annos  de  prisao  com  trabalho.  No  gran 
medio,  cinco  annos,  idem.     No  gran  miuimo,  dous  annos,  idem. 

Art.  84.  Tambem  commettera  crime  de  pirataria : 

§  1".  O  que  fizer  parte  de  qualquer  euibarca^ao  que  navegue  armada, 
senj  ter  passaporte,  matriculada  equipagemououtros  documeutos 
134]    que  provem  a  *legitimidade  da  viagem  : 

Fenas  ao  commandante. — No  grau  maximo,  desezeis  annos  de 
I'ri.sao  com  trabalho.  No  gran  medio,  dez  rinos,  idem.  No  gran  mi- 
iiiiiio,  quatro  annos,  idem. 

Fenas  a  cqnipaffem. — No  gran  maximo,  oito  annos  de  prisao  com  trabal 


lio.    No   grau  m«''dio,   cinco   annos,  idem.     No 


grau 


miuimo,  quatro 


[annos  idem. — (Codigo  criminal  do  imperio  do  Brazil,  pelo  Dr.  Carlos 
Antonio  Cordeiro.    Rio  de  Janeiro,  1801.) 

[For  the  circular  of  the  Brazilian  government  in  the  original,  with 
joomraentary  thereon,  see  Apontameutos  para  o  direito  iuteruacioual, 
I  por  Antonio  Pereira  Pinto,  torn,  ii,  p.  38G.] 


«:*,:•.  \ 


0' 


ftps 

m 


J'  .1 


•  I.. 


■  I- 


•p 


N 


I- 


Hi 


I!J  I  -■T 


hi 


v^Vm 


86  TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 

435]  '[Translation.] 

CRIMINAL  CODE  OF  BRAZIL. 

Part  II. — Of  political  crime. 

Title  I. — Of  crimes  against  the  political  existence  of  the  empire. 

Chapter  I. — Of  crimes  against  the  independence,  integrity,  ami 
dignity  of  the  nation. 

Art.  G9. — To  provoke  directly,  and  by  acts,  a  foreign  nation  to  de- 
clare war  against  the  empire,  if  such  declaration  is  verified  and  is  fol- 
lowed by  war : 

Punishments. — In  the  highest  degree,  eighteen  years  of  imprisonment 
with  labor.  In  the  middle  degree,  twelve  yeavs,  ditto.  In  the  lowest 
degree,  six  years,  ditto. 

If,  from  the  provocation,  a  declaration  of  v  ar  does  not  follow,  or  it', 
although  war  be  declared,  it  does  not  take  effect,  the  nation  remaining 
without  injury  or  prejudice: 

Punishments. — In  the  highest  degree,  six  years  of  imprisonment  Avitli 
labor.  In  the  middle  degree,  four  years,  ditto.  In  the  lowest  degree, 
two  years,  ditto. 

If,  in  case  war  declared  does  not  take  place,  but  in  consequence  of  tlio 
provocation,  there  should  be  necessity  for  any  sacrifice,  on  the  part  of 
the  nation;  in  prejudice  of  its  integrity,  dignity,  and  interest : 

Punishments. — In  the  highest  degree,  twelve  years   of  ini- 

[436]        prisonment  with  labor.    In  the  middle  degree,  ^. seven  years 

and  six  months,  ditto.    In  the  lowest  degree,  three  years,  ditto. 

Art.  7.'i. — To  commit,  without  order  or  authorization  of  the  govern- 
ment, hostilities  against  the  subjects  of  another  nation,  so  as  to  com- 
promise peace  or  provoke  reprisals : 

Punishments. — In  the  highest  degree,  twelve  years  of  imprisonmoiit 
with  labor.  In  the  middle  degree,  six  years  and  six  months,  ditto.  In 
the  lowest  degree,  a  year,  ditto. 

If  by  such  proceeding,  any  Brazilian  suffers  any  injury,  the  accused 
shall  be  considered  author  thereof,  and  i)unished  with  correspondonr 
punishments  in  addition  to  the  above-mentionetl. 

Art.  74. — To  violate  treaties  legitimately  made  with  foreign  nations: 

Punishments. — In  the  highest  degree,  six  years  of  imprisonment.  In 
the  middle  degree,  three  years  and  six  months,  ditto.  In  the  lowest 
degree,  one  year,  (litto. 

Art.  82.^ — To  exercise  piracy;  and  this  crime  shall  be  deemed  to  have 
been  committed : 

1.  Practicing  on  the  sea  any  siet  of  depredation  or  of  violenec 
whether  against  Brazilians  or  against  foreigners  with  whom  Brazil  is ! 

not  in  a  state  of  war ; 
[437J        2.  Abusing  letters  of  marque  legitimately  *conceded  to  prat' | 
tice  hostilities  either  against  Brazilian  ships  or  those  of  otiur 
jiations  without  authority  to  commit  hostilities  against  them  : 

Punishments. — In  the  highest  degree,  galleys  [or  imprisonment  with  I 
laborj  for  life.  In  the  middle  degree,  twenty  years  of  imprisonment  | 
with  labor.    In  the  lowest  degree,  ten  yearw,  ditto. 

§  G.  Accepting  letters  of  marque  from  a  foreign  government  without  | 
competent  authorization  : 

Punishments. — In  the  highest  degree,  eight  years  of  imprisonment  | 
with  labor.    In  the  middle  degree,  five  years,  ditto.    In  the  lowest  dc 
gree,  two  years,  ditto. 

Art.  84.  Also  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  the  crime  of  piracy : 

1.  Whoever  makes  part  of  any  crew  which  navigates  armed,  without  I 


t'ino,  comet 


COUNTER  CASE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


87 


bavi'ig  passport,  role  d'equipage,  or  other  doeninents  which  jirove  the 
legitimacy  of  the  voyage : 

Punishments  of  the  commandant. — In  the  highest  degree,  sixteen  years 
of  imprisonment  with  labor.  In  the  middle  degree,  ten  years,  ditto.  In 
the  lowest  degree,  four  years,  ditto. 

Punishments  of  the  crew. — In  the  highest  degree,  eight  years  of  irapris- 
oument  with  labor.  In  the  middle  degree,  live  years,  ditto.  In  the  lowest 
degree,  two  years,  ditto. 

[438]       [See  claims  of  United  States  against  Gre.at  Britain,  *vol.  7,  pp- 
107-llC,  for  translations  of  divers  circulars  issued  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Emi)eror  of  Brazil  for  the  observance  of  his  subjects  for  the 
years  1854-1872.  J 


it 


[441] 


v.— SP  AIK 


Xo.  1.  Penal  code. 

No.  2.  Case  of  the  Stonewall. 


ii.i: 


No.  1.— PENAL  CODE. 

Codigo  penal  reformado  conforme  al  te.vto  official,  con  notas  y  ohscraaclones, 
par  ]).  Vicente  Uernandez  de  la  Eua,  (Madrid,  1800,)  pj).  110,  111,  113. 

Art.  148.  lil  que,  con  actos  no  autorizados  competentemente,  pro- 
vocare  6  diere  motivo  a  una  declaracion  de  guerra  contra  Espaila  por 
parte  de  otra  potencia  6  expusiere  a  los  Espanoles  a  experimentar 
vejaciones  o  represalias  en  sus  personas  6  en  sus  bienes,  sera  castigado 
con  la  pena  de  prision  mayor,  y,  si  fuere  empleado  publico,  con  lade 
lot'lusion  temporal. 

Art.  151.  Rl  que,  sin  autorizacion  legitima,  levantare  tropas  en  el 

icino  i)arael  servicio  de  una  potencia  extranjera,  6  destinare  buques  al 

corso,  cuahpiiera  que  sea  el  objeto  que  se  proponga  6  la  nacion 

[442]    6  que  intente  hostilizar,  sera  *castigado  con  las  penas  de  prision 

mayor  y  multa  500  a  5,000  duros. 

Art.  150.  101  delito  de  piratoria  cometido  contra  Espafioles,  o  subditos 
do  otra  nacion  que  no  se  halle  en  guerra  con  Espana,  sera  castigado 
con  la  pena  de  cadena  temporal,  en  su  grado  maxiino  a  la  de  muerte. 

/v7  codigo  penal,  concordado  y  comentado  por  Don  Joaffuin  Francisco  Pa- 
checo,  tomo  11,  pp.  01,  02,  0(1,  97,  {Madrid,  1870.) 

Art.  148.  "  Rl  (pie,  con  actos  no  autorizados  competentemente,  provo- 
care  6  diere  motivo  a  una  declaracion  de  guerra  contra  Espafia  por 
parte  de  otra  ])otencia,  6  expusiere  a  los  Espanoles  a  experimentar  ve- 
jaciones 6  represalias  en  sus  personas  6  en  sus  bienes,  sera  castigado 
con  la  pena  de  prision  mayor,  y,  si  fuere  empleado  i)ublico,  con  la  de  re- 
elusion  temporal." 

Cod.  esp.  de  1822. 

Art.  258.  lt!l  que,  sin  conocimiento  influgo  ni  autorizacicm  del  gobi- 
cvuo,  cometiere  hostilidades  contra  los  subditos  de  alguna  potencia 
aliada  6  neutral,  6  expusiere  al  estado  por  esta  causa  o  sufrir  una  decla- 
racion de  guerra,  6  a  que  se  hagan  represalias  contra  Espanoles,  sera  con- 


^1: 
• ». 


■■■wn 
11 


rpT 


*i 


m 


[ 

K- 


n 


88  TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 

(leuado  s'l  dar  satisfaccion  pilblica,  y  a  reclusion  6  i)risiou  tie  dos  ;i 
[443]    seis  afios,  y  pagara  una  luulta  ij'ual  a  *  la  cuarta  parte  del  valor  dc 

losdauos  quehiibiere  caiisado;  todo  siuijerjuiciodeeualquieraotrii 
pena  que  merezca  por  la  vloleueia  cometida.  Si  por electo de  dicliaa  liosti- 
lidades  resultare  iiumediataniente  6  hubiere  resultado  al  tieiuiw  del  juicio 
una  declaracion  de  giierra,  scrs'i  castigado  el  reo  con  la  pena  de  depoi  t;i 
cion. 

Comoitario. 

1.  Ko  es  coiuun  en  el  siglo  XIX  que  se  declaren  guerras  per  provo 
caciones  particulares ;  pero  si  pueden  dar  estas  niotivo  a  reclaniaciones 
niuy  fundadas,  que  se  conviertan  en  represalias.  Caso  de  desateii 
derse  he  aquf,  pues,  la  aplicacion  i^ractica  del  artieulo;  aqui  como 
puede  liaber  lugar  a  esa  prision  mayor  6  A  esa  reclusion  que  se  indicaii. 

2.  Estoscastigos  sou  indudablemeutejustos.  Quien  expone  a  su  patria. 
quieu  exi>one  a  sus  conciudadanos  a  los  azares  de  una  reclaniacion  de 
tal  genero,  de  las  represalias  que  pueden  ser  consiguientes  aun  de  las 
hostilidades  que  uo  son  iniposibles,  merece  sin  duda  una  ejemplar  y 
severa  eorreccion.  Seria  el  colmo  del  escaudalo  que  sus  couipatricios  o 
el  estado  sufriesen  las  consecuencias  de  su  mala  obra,  y  que  el  riese 
entre  tanto  presenciandolas  en  quietud  y  seguridad. 

[444]  *Art.  151.  "  V'A  que,  siu  autorizaciou  legitima,  levantare  tropas 
en  el  reino  para  el  servicio  de  una  potencia  extrangera,  6  desti- 
nare  buques  al  corso,  cualquiera  que  sea  el  objeto  (]ue  se  i)roponga  6  la 
nacion  a  que  iutente  bostilizar,  sera  castigado  con  las  penas  de  prision 
mayor  y  multa  de  500  a  5,000  duros." 

Comcntario. 

1.  He  aqui  dos  accioues:  la  de  alistar  tropas  para  servicio  extranjero  v 
la  de  destinar  buques  al  corso,  tambien  en  provecho  de  una  causa  ex- 
tranjera,  que  la  lei  podia  autorizar  6  reprimir,  segun  los  principios  que 
le  i^luguiesen.  ])e  lieclio,  la  conciencia  bumana  no  senala  estos  actos 
como  criminales,  y  la  mayor  i)arte  de  los  cckligos  nada  dicen  acerca  de 
elloa.  No  habia  una  necesidad  de  constituirlos  en  delito  ;  no  la  babiu 
de  iinponerles  las  penas  atpii  senaladas,  ni  aiin,  en  rigor,  ingunas 
otras. 

2.  Sin  embargo,  comprenderaos,  y  lo  que  es  mas,  ajirobamos  el  sisteiiia 
de  nuestra  ley.  Parecenos  bien  que  los  Espanoles  no  tengan  esa  t>icul 
tad  que  disfrutan  los  habitantes  de  algunos  «tros  pueblos,  de  armarv 
alistar  reclutas,  para  pouerlos  al  servicio  de  una  potencia  extrana ;  do 

destinar  bu(]ues  al  corso,  para  servir  los  intereses  de  esas  misnias 
[445]    potencias.     Es  la  guerra  de  por  si  una  *eosa  bastante  gi-ave,  v 

pueden  coniprometer  mucbo  a  la  i)atiia  los  armamentos  que  en 
esta  se  ejecuten,  para  que  nos  i)arezca  bien  que  pueda  cnalquier  in 
dividuo  Jirrqjarse  a  veriflcarlos  sin  autorizacion.  La  ley  no  debe  <]uerei' 
que  derramen  su  sangre  los  Espanoles,  si  no  i)or  causas  que  pueda  y 
deba  aceptar  Espana  ;  la  ley  no  debe  (pierer,  no  debe  permitir,  <pie  se 
maquine  abiertamente  de  ese  niodo  contra  naciones  6  pueblos  que  no 
nos  ban  dado  motivo  alguuo  de  queja.  Hay  siempre  algo  de  mercena 
rio  y  de  poco  caballeroso  en  esas  levas  de  gente,  a  la  que  nos  conduce 
ninguna  idea  patriotica,  sino  el  solo  interes  de  la  ganancia.  Bueno  o» 
que  la  ley  corrija  los  malos  y  depravados  instintos  que  quieran  hacerse 
cundir  en  la  nacion  ;  ^nieno  es  que  conserve  el  decoro  de  uuestro  uoin 
bre,  y  las  tradiciones  de  nuestra  castellana  fe. 


hnario  del  ests 


COrXTKK    ^A^«K    OK    THE    I'MTED    STATES. 


89 


AiiT.  !")»».  "El  delito  de  piratcria  eonietido  contra  Espanoles,  <>  sub- 
(litos  (1(^  otra  iiacioii  qiio  no  se  lialle  en  fjuena  eon  Espansi,  sera  ea.stigado 
con  la  pena  de  (;adona  teniporal,  en  su  grado  niaxinio  a  niuerte.'' 

Comintario. 

1.  La  pirateria  es  «le  ]»or  si  uii  crimen  tan  bajo  conio  fern?;.    1^1  es 

robo,  ^1  es  latrocinio  del  baMdolero,  mas  on  major  escala  y  con 
[440J    todo  *el  aumento  de  males  y  de  peligros  (jue  trae  iiatnralniente  el 

elemento  donde  se  empreude  y  ejecuta.  La  depredacion  es  su 
]»riucipal  objeto,  pero  las  violencias  de  toda  especie,  y  la  muerte  misma, 
son  su  acompafiamieiito  Decesario;  el  cafion  y  el  abordaje,  indispensa- 
bles.medios  de  su  obra;  los  desiertos  del  mar,  teatro  de  sus  proezas,  nos 
iiidican  bien  todo  loque  eu  e.se  ejercicio  debe  baberdo  barbaro,de  desal- 
niado,  de  horroroso. 

2.  Como  el  oceano  no  pertenece  a  naciou  alguua,  todas  las  naciones 
se  ban  creido  con  derecho  para  castigar  este  crimen, que  a  todos  lieri.a  y 
alcanzaba.  Todas  le  ban  eastij^ado.  Unas  le  ban  escrito  en  sus  codigos 
con  su  propio  nombre ;  otras  le  ban  aplicado  las  penas  generales  de  las 
muertes,  de  las  violencias,  de  kjs  robos  que  le  constituyen.  Pero  en 
iiinguna  parte  se  lia  mirado  con  iudulgencia  ni  con  indiferencia  a  esos 
bindidos  y  ladrones  del  agiia,  rpie,  sin  otra  ley  que  su  gusto,  sin  otra  au- 
toridad  que  la  de  su  propio  poder,  ban  recorrido  saquando,  violando, 
(lestruyendo,  el  naturalmente  pacifico  espacio  de  los  mares.  Donde 
(liiiera,  la  conciencia  bnuiana  lia  inspirado  y  aprobado  su  castigo. 

3.  El  articulo  15G  de  nuestro  c<'>digo,  adoptandt*  esta  universal  cos- 

tumbre,  ba  senalado  una  pena  general  al  delito  de  pirateria, 
[447]    donde  (juiera  *que  se  cometiera.      Sin  embargo,  no  ba  sido  tan 

absoluto  al  designar  las  personas  contra  las  cuales  se  ba  de  liaber 
cometido.  No  ba  dicbo,  i>or  cierto,  que  cualesquiera  que  sean  estas,  sera 
del  niismo  modo  criminosa  y  punible  la  accion.  Le  ba  limitado  6  decla- 
lado  tal  cuando  ba  recaido  en  Espafioles,  6  en  siibditos  de  una  poteni'la 
(jue  no  se  balle  en  guerra  con  Espana.  Cuando  la  pirateria  se  ba  ejer- 
cido  en  dauode  extranjcios  que  son,  o  que  eran  enterices  ?  enemigos 
nuestros,  la  ley  ba  callado,  y  no  ba  <]uerido  reconocer  como  delito  so- 
uiejante  accion,  l^os  motivosde  esto  son  evidentes:  no  bemos  de  ir  no- 
sotros  a  asegurar  los  mares  en  provecbo  <lc  nuestros  enemigos;  no  be- 
mos de  ir  a  castigar  los  males  y  perjuicios  «|ue  bubieran  causado  otros 
I  seinejantes;  seria  una  demasiada  y  contradictoria  bondad  el  dispensaries 
proteccion  contra  quienes  desenipenaban  casi  nuestro  propio  papel. 

;44S[    *A])<'iulice  a  los  cmninUiri<ts  del  nUliffo  jtenaJ  de  Don  Joaquin  Frau- 
ciHco  Pacheco  n  sea  el  nuero  codit/o,  comentodas  las  (tdicinncs  ijue 
vontiene  per  Don  Josr  Hov-'iom-  y  Serrano,  {Madrid,  1870,)  p.  110. 

AiiTi'cui.o  147.  "El  que,  con  actos  ilegales,  6  que  no  est«''n  autoriza- 

|<los  competentemente,  provocare  6  diere  motivo  a  una  declaracion  de 

Suorra  contra  Espana  pi>r  parte  deotra  i»otencia  «'>expusiere  a  los  Espa- 

i  Holes  a  experimentar  vejaciones  •»  represalias  en  sus  personas  6  en  sus 

l>icnes,  sera  castigado  con  la  i>ena  de  reclusiion  tenipural,  si  fuere  fuuci- 

[onario  del  estado,  y  no  siendolo.  con  la  de  i)rision. 

"Si  la  guerra  no  Uegare  a  declararse,  ni  a  tener  efecto  las  vejaciones  6 
[lepresftlias,  se  impondran  las  penas  respectivas  en  el  grado  inmedia- 
[iiiente  interior." 

ARxfcuLO  150.  "  t-ll  que,  sin  autorizacion  bastante,  levantare  tropas 
I'll  el  reino  para  el  servicio  de  una  potencia  extranjera,  cualquiera  que 
h^ea  el  objeto  que  se  i)roponga  6  la  nacion  a  quien  inteute  hostilizar,  sera 


v»i 


!'■  * 


-I 


!       I 


.1 
i 


i 


ii: 


H' 


l- 


h'-t; 


iii^     'ii 


I ;  i 


lift' 


111-      '^l 
iB.-J.    ,' 


i 


90 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON PAPJ^RS   ACCOMPANYING 


castigado  con  las  penas  de  prision  mayor  y  multa  de  5,00(^  a  50,0(H)| 
pesetas. 

"  l5l  que,  sill  autorizacion  ba.stante,  destinare  biiques  al  corso,  sera  cas 
tigado  con  las  penas  de  reclusiou  temporal  y  mnlta  de  2,500  a  2o,(KH)  | 
pesetas. 

Ulcmentoft  del  derecho  civil  y  penal  de  Esparta, precedidos  de  um\ 
[440]        rcsena  historiea  de  la  legislacion  €s*pariola,  per  los  doctorex  ]i.\ 
I'cdro  Gomez  de  la  Serna  y  D.  Juan  Manuel  Montalban,  [Madrid. 
1871,)  tomo  3,  j>i>.  241,  242.     (Page  241.) 

Art.  14.   V'A   que,  con  actos  ilegales,  6  que  no  estcn  autorizadusl 
competentemente    provocare  6  diere    motivo  j'l   una   declaracion    de 
guerra  contra  Espafia  por  parte  de  otri'   potencia  6  expusiere  a  lo> 
Espafioles  a  experimentar  vojaciones  6  represalias  en  sus  personas  6  en 
sus  bienes,  en  cuyos  casos  estanin  comprendidos  los  que  invadieren  iinj 
pais  extrano  y  cometieren  en  «''l  actos  de  violencia  asi  como  tambien  lo> 
que  ultrajaren  a  un  enviado  extranjero,  sera  castigado  con  la  pena  dn 
reclusion  temporal,  si  fuere  funcionario  <lel  estado,  y  no  siendolo,  cou  l;i| 
lirision  mayor. 

Si  la  guerra  no  llegare  ;'i  declararse,  ni  a  toner  efecto  los  vejacioiie* 
6  represalias,  se  impodran  las  penas  respectivas  en  el  grado  inruediata 
mente  interior. 

Art.  150.  1^]1  que,  sin  autorizacion  bastante,  levantare  tropas  eu  t\ 
reino  para  el  servicio  de  una  potencia  extranjera,  cnalquiera  que  seat!| 
objeto  que  se  proponga  6  la  nacion  }'i  quiere  intente  liostiliza,  sera  casti 
j-ado  con  las  penas  de  prision  mayor  y  multa  do  5,000  ji  50,000  peseta>. 

;fil  que,  sin  autorizacion  bastante,  destinare  al  corso,  sera  castigado  co!i| 
las  penas  de  reclusion  temporal  y  multa  de  2,500  a  25,000  pesetas. 
[450]  Tolerar  el  le*vantaniiento  de  fuerza  en  un  pais  en  favor  de  deter  | 
minada  potencia,  puede  ser  ya  un  acto  de  hostilidad  mas  6  meno> 
abierta  contra  otra.  El  delito  de  levautar  tropas  para  insurreccion  eiu'i 
reino  no  esta  comprendido  en  esta  disposicion,  pues  corresponde  a  laj 
categoria  de  los  que  se  cometen  contra  la  seguridad  interior. 

CAl'lTULO  IV,  (pp.  240,  247.) 

Art.  155.  El  delito  de  pirateria  cometido  contra  Espanoles,  6  siibdito<| 
de  otra  nacion  que  no  se  balle  en  guerra  con  Espana,  sera  castigado  coii| 
la  pena  de  cadona  temporal  6  cadena  perpetua. 

Cuando  el  delito  se  eometiere  contra  subditos  no  beligerantes  de  otwl 
nacion  (pie  se  halle  en  guerra  con  Espana,  sera  castigado  con  la  peii.i| 
de  presidio  mayor. 

Este  delito,  comprendido  antes  en  el  ca])itulo  anterior,  es  uno  de  lo?| 
nms  odiosos  <iue  pueden  cometerse,  pncs  ataca  la  seguridad  de  las  peij 
sonas,  paralizala  navigacion  y  entorpecc  las  transacciones  mercantile\ 
Los  lugares  mismos  en  que  se  ejecuta  Ic  liacen  mas  alarmante  y  terriblcl 
Y  es  de  advertir  que  no  tiene  senalada   pena  cuando  se  comete  contnil 
los  extranjeros   que   se  liallan  en  guerra  con  Espana;  limitacion  qiifl 
todas  las  legislaciones  han  adoptado,  y  que  se  lunda  en  el  i)rincipio  dcj 
ser  licito  liostilizar  al  enemigo  por  tierra  y  por  mar,  no  solo  con  e.jiif 
citos  regulares  sino  con  fuerzas  capitaneadas  por  particuhuej, 
[451]    para  cuyo  *efecto  se  expiden  en  el  iiltimo  caso  las  patentes  eni 
corso.    El  codigo  retonnado  lia  lieclio  una  aclaracion,  cual  es\i\ 
de  que  pirateria  constituye  delito  y  por  el  se  impone  una  grave  peua 
cuando  se  dirige  contra  subditos  no  beligerahtes ;  mas  el  corso  autori  I 
zado  eu  debida  forma  es  licito  tambien  contra  estos,  y  no  debe  coufundirs<f| 
con  la  pirateria. 


COUNTER   CASE    OF   THE    UNITED    STATES. 


[TranHlation.] 


91 


Amended  penal  statue  conf/ruent  to  the  official  text,  icith  notes  and  ohser- 
rations,  by  Bon  Vicente  Hernandez  de  la  Jiua,  {Madrid,  1800,)  pp.  110» 
HI,  112. 

Akt.  148.  "  W  hoever  shall,  without  having  been  permitted  to  do  so 
liy  competent  authority,  have  provoked  or  given  motive  to  a  declaration 
lit"  war  against  Spain  on  the  part  of  another  i)ower,  or  have  exposed 
Spanish  subjects  to  suffer  vexations  or  reprisals  against  their  persons  or 
their  properties,  he  shall  bo  punished  with  imprisonment;  and  if  such 
|terson  be  a  i>ublic  functionar}-,  he  shall  be  punished  with  temporary 
rechision." 

Art.  151.  Whosoever  shall,  without  legitimate  authority,  raise 

452j  troops  within  the  kingdom  for  the  ser*vice  of  any  foreign  power,  or 

shall  fit  out  privateers,  whatever  may  be  his  object  or  the  natioti 

ijrainst  which  he  intends  to  commit  hostilities,  he  shall  be  ])unished 

with  imprisonment,  and  fined  from  five  hundred  to  five  thousand  duros. 

Art.  156.  "Thecrimeof  piracy  committed  against  Spaniards,  or  against 
Mibjects  of  another  nation  which  is  not  at  war  with  Spain,  shall  be  pun- 
ished with  the  maximum  of  temporary  irons  or  with  capital  punisli- 
uieut."' 

The  penal  statute  coordinated  and  commented  hi/  Don  Joaquin  Francisco 
I'acheco,  vol.  2,  jji^j.  91,  92,  96,  97,  Madrid,  1870. 

Art.  148.  "  Whosoever  shall,  without  having  been  i)erinitted  to  do 
so  by  competent  authority,  have  provoked  or  given  motive  to  a  declara- 
tion of  war  against  Spain  on  the  iiart  of  another  power,  or  shall  have 
exposed  Spanish  subjects  to  sutler  vexations  or  reprisals  against  their 
[lersous  or  properties,  ho  shall  be  punished  with  imprisonment: ;  and  if 
such  person  be  a  public  functionary,  he  shall  be  punished  with  tempo- 
rary reclusion.-' — Spanish  statute  of  1822. 

Art.  258.  "  Whosoever  shall,  without  the  kuowledge,  authority,  or 
liermission  of  the  government,  have  committed  hostilities  against  any  al- 
lied or  neutral  power,  or  shall  have  exposed  the  state  to  suffer  for 
453]  that  cause  a  declaration  *of  war,  er  if  such  hostilities  shall  have 
been  the  ground  for  reprisals  against  Spaniards,  he  shall  be  con- 
demned to  give  public  satisfaction  for  such  offense,  and  to  reclusion  or 
iin[)risonment  for  a  term  of  from  two  to  six  years,  and  shall  pay  a  fine 
tqual  to  one-quarter  of  the  amount  of  damages  he  shall  have  occa- 
sioned, without  prejudice  to  any  further  punishment  whit'h  he  may  be 
liable  to  incur  for  the  violence  committed.    If  said  hostilities  shall  have 
brought  on  an  immediate  declaration  of  war,  or  if  such  declaration  shall 
have  preceded  the  time  of  the  trial,  the  offender  shall  be  punished  with 
nausportation." 

Commentari/. 

1.  It  does  not  commonly  happen  in  the  nineteenth  century  that  wars 
iuc  declared'on  account  of  private  provocations;  but  such  provocations 
may  be  the  grounds  for  justified  (jlaims,  which,  in  case  of  misunder- 
>tandiug,  may  cause  reprisals.  This  is  a  case  for  the  practical  application 
'•fthe  article,  and  of  the  imprisonment  or  reclusion  which  it  provides. 

2,  The  above  penalties  are  undoubtedly  justifiable,  for  whoever 
exposes  his  country  and  his  fellow-citizens  to  the  dangers  of  such  claims 
to  the  reprisals  which  may  be  the  consequence  thereof,  or  to  the  hostili- 
ties which  it  is  not  impossible  may  follow,  is  no  doubt  deserving  o 


-Si    i  I 


r 


I  ■'III 


;i  I 


t 


m 


92 


TREATY    OF    WASFflNOTON PAPERS    ACCOMPANYING 


'i   ■, 


sovero  «ainl  exemplary  punisliinent.  It  would  be  most  scandalous 
[151]    that  his  fellow-citizens  or  *tlie   State  should  suffer  the  coiisc 

quencea  of  his  misconduct,  while  he  should  make  a  Jest  of  it  and 
quietly  and  safely  Avitness  the  result. 

Art.  l.'il.  ''Whosoever  shall,  without  legitimate  authority,  raise 
troops  within  the  kingdom  for  tlio  service  of  any  foreign  power  or  shall 
fit  out  privateers,  whatever  may  be  his  object  or  whatsoever  the  nation 
against  which  he  intends  to  commit  hostilities,  he  shall  be  punished  witli 
imprisonment  and  fined  from  500  to  5,000  duros." 

Commentary. 

1st.  This  article  ju'ovides  against  two  distinct  acts:  that  of  enlisting' 
troops  for  a  foreign  service  and  that  of  fitting  out  i)rivateer8  with  tlie 
object  also  of  giving  assistance  to  a  foreign  cause.  The  law  may 
authorize  or  prohibit  such  acts,  as  is  thought  best.  In  fact  human  coil 
science  does  not  i)oint  out  these  acts  as  being  criminal,  and  most 
statutes  do  not  mention  them  in  any  way.  It  was  not  necessary  to  look 
upon  such  acts  as  an  offense,  nor  to  punish  them  by  the  penalties  flxod  | 
in  this  article,  or  indeed  by  any  other  penalty. 

2d.  Nevertheless  we  understand  the  system  of  our  law  and  approve  I 
thereof.   We  deem  it  proper  that  Spaniards  should  not  have  the  liberty, 
which  is  enjoyed  by  the  inhabitants  of  some  other  places,  to  arm  and 
enlist  recruits  for  entering  the  service  of  a  foreign  iiower,  nor  to  fit  out  | 
privateers  to  the  same  purpose.    War  is  in  itself  a  fact  of  too  serious 
a  character,  and  such  armaments  may  too  greatly  endanger  | 
[455]    *the  safety  of  the  country,  that  we  should  think  it  fit  or  justitia 
ble  for  any  person  whatsoever  to  embark  in  such  an  enterprise  | 
without  being  duly  authorized  to  do  so.    The  law  must  not  allow  Span 
ish  blood  to  be  shed,  except  for  causes  such  as  Spain  can  and  ought  to 
defend.    The  law  must  not  allow  nor  permit  such  open  plots  against  I 
nations  or  countries  which  have  not  given  this  nation  any  ground  for 
complaint.    There  is  always  something  mercenary  and  anti-chivalrous  | 
about  these  levies  of  men  which  does  not  admit  of  any  patriotic  feeling, 
except  the  mere  love  of  lucre.    It  is  good  that  the  law  should  correct  | 
the  bad  and  depraved  instincts  which  individuals  may  attempt  to  propa 
gate  through  the  nation,  and  it  is  well  that  it  should  uphold  the  honor 
of  our  name  and  the  traditions  of  our  Castilian  faith. 

Art.  150.  "The  crime  of  piracy  committed  against  Spaniards,  or | 
against  subjects  of  another  nation  which  is  not  at  arms  with  Spain, 
shall  be  punished  with  the  maximum  of  temporary  imprisonment  or 
with  capital  punishment." 

Commentary. 

1.  Piracy  is  in  itself  a  crime  as  base  as  it  is  cruel.  It  is  the  robbery 
and  theft  of  tlie  freebooter,  only  practicnl  on  a  larger  scale,  with  all 
the  inoeased  evils  and  dangers  which  are  the  natural  result  of  the  ele- 

jiient  where  it  is  practiced  and  carried  on.    Depredation  is  its  prin- 
[45G]    cipal  object,  *but  violence  of  every  description  and  murder  itself 

are  its  necessary  attendants.    Cannon  and  cutlasses  are  its  indis- 
pensable means  of  action.  The  deserts  of  the  seas,  which  are  the  scenes 
of  its  deeds,  might  easily  demonstrate  how  barbarous,  profligate,  and  j 
shocking  is  its  practic. 

2.  As  the  ocean  does  not  belong  to  any  particular  nation,  all  nations 


or  nanie 


COUNTER   CASE    OF   THE    UNITED    STATES. 


93 


'   f  ;. 


have  coiifsUleied  tluMiist'lves  as  entitled  to  imnisli  that  crime  wliicli  in- 
jured and  reached  each  one  of  tlietn.  All  have  alilco  punished  it. 
,Somo  have  proviiled  against  it  in  their  statutes,  and  called  it  by  its 
proper  name ;  others  have  punished  it  witli  the  jjeneral  penalties  de- 
Diuiced  against  murder,  violence,  and  robbery,  which  constitute  piracy. 

hint  nowhere  has  the  law  looked  with  indulgence  or  indifference  upon 
these  banditti  and  robbers  of  the  waters,  who,  with  no  other  law  than 
their  own  good  pleasure,    and  with  no  other  authority    than  their 

jiiwii  power,  have  overrun  the  naturally  peaceful  seas,  ransacking, 
violating,  and  destroying  on  their  way.    Throughout  the  world,  human 

Icoiiscience  has  iiisi)ired  and  approved  their  punishment. 

,  Article  150  of  our  statute,  in  adopting  this  universal  custom,  has 

ik'iiouiiced  one  general  penalty  against  the  crime  of  piracy,  wherever  it 

may  be  committed.     It  is  true  the  provisions  of  oui  law  have  not 

[457J    been  of  a  so  absolute  character  witli  re*gard  to  the  persons 

against  whom  the  crime  may  have  been  committed,  and  it  has 

[not  provided  that,  whosoever  these  persons  may  be,  the  act  sliall  be 
tMlually  criminal  and  equally  liable  to  punishment.  It  has  limited  its 
provisions  to  the  case  when  the  crime  shall  have  been  committed  against 

[Spaniards  or  subjects  of  a  power  which  is  not  at  war  with  Spain. 
The  law  is  silent  for  the  case  where  piracy  has  been  committed  to  the 

|iiijary  of  foreigners  who  are,  or  were  at  the  time,  our  enemies,  sind  such 
acts  it  has  not  deemed  proi)er  to  consider  a  crime.    The  grounds  thereof 

jure  obvious.     We  are  not  bound  to  secure  the  seas  for  the  profit  of 

jour  enemies.    We  are  not  bound  to  punish  the  harm  and  injury  they 

Iraay  have  experienced  from  other  enemies ;  it  would  be  too  great  and 

Itoo  contradictory  a  kindness  to  deal  out  protection  to  them  against 

Ithose  who,  as  it  were,  are  performing  our  part. 

I [158]    *Api)€nillv  to  the  commentaries  oj  Bon  Joaquin  Francisco  Facheco 
on  the  penal  statute,  or  neto  statute,  with  commentaries  on  the  ad- 
ditions thereto,  hy  Don  Jose  Gonzales  and  Serrano,  {Madrid,  1870,  p.  10.) 

Art.  147.  "  Whosoever  shall,  by  unlawful  acts,  or  without  having  been 
jpermitted  to  do  so  by  competent  authority,  have  provoked  or  given 
Imotive  to  a  declaration  of  war  against  Spain  on  the  part  of  another 
Ipower,  or  shall  have  exposed  Spanish  subjects  to  suffer  exactions  or  re- 
Iprisals  against  their  persons  or  their  properties,  he  shall  be  punished 
rvith  temporary  reclusiou,  if  he  be  a  functionary  of  the  state,  and  if  he 
|l)e  not  such,  with  imprisonment." 

"  If  the  war  be  not  declared,  and  if  the  vexations  or  reprisals  be  not 
[carried  into  effect,  the  respective  penalties  shall  be  of  the  degree  imme- 
jiliately  below." 

Art.  150.  "  Whosoever  shall,  without  sufficient  authority,  have  lev- 
lied  troops  within  the  kingdom  for  the  service  of  any  foreign  power, 
phatever  may  be  his  object  or  the  nation  against  which  he  Intends  to 
Icoinmit  hostilities,  he  shall  be  punished  with  imprisonment  and  fined 
jlrom  5,000  to  50,000  pesetas." 

•'Whoever  shall,  without  sufficient  authority,  have  fitted  out  pri- 
Ivateers,  he  shall  be  punished  with  temporary  reclusion  and  fined  from 
|i',500  to  25,000  pesetas." 

|[W,9]    *Elements  of  the  penal  and  civil  right  of  Spain,  preceded  by  a  his- 
torical notice  on  the  Spanish  legislation,  hy  the  Doctors  Don  Pedro 
\Gomez  de  la  Serna  and  Don  Juan  Manuel  3Iontalban,  {Madrid,  1871,  vol. 
\pp.  241,  242,  246,  page  241.) 

Art.  147.   ''  Whosoever  shall,  by  unlawful  acts,  or  without  having 


I    ' 


t 


i    1 


*',' 


\:      t 


,1.: 


*  '     ., 

I 
J 


r^w 


94 


TRKATY    OF    WASHINGTON PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 


|! 


-■ 


been  permitted  to  do  so  by  competent  authority,  have  provoked  or 
given  notice  to  u  declaration  of  war  against  Spain  on  tbe  part  of 
unother  power,  or  sliall  liave  exposed  Spanish  subjects  to  suflfer  vexa 
tions  or  reprisals  against  their  persons  or  their  properties,  by  which  .acts 
shall  be  understood  whoever  shall  have  invaded  a  foreign  country  and 
whall  have  committed  therein  acts  of  violence,  and  also  whoever  shall 
hr.ve  insulted  a  foreign  ambassador,  he  shall  be  punished  with  tempo 
rary  reclusion,  if  ho  be  a  funcitionary  of  the  state,  and  if  he  be  notsucb, 
with  imprisonment." 

''  If  the  war  be  not  declared,  and  if  the  vexations  or  reprisals  be  not 
carried  into  effect,  the  respective  i)enalties  shall  be  of  the  degree  iiu 
mediately  below." 

Art.  ].>!.  "  Whosoever  shall,  without  sufticient  authority,  have  levieil 

troops  within  the  kingdom  for  the  service  of  any  foreign  power,  what 

ever  may  be  his  object  or  the  nation  against  which  he  intends  to  com 

mit  hostilities,  he  shall  be  punished  with  imprisonment  and  finod 

[4()()J    from  *50()  to  50,000  pesetas." 

"  If  any  person  whosoever  shall,  without  snflicient  authority, 
have  fitted  out  privateers,  he  shall  be  i)uni8hed  with  temporary  reclu- 
sion and  fined  from  2,500  to  25,000  pesetas." 

I'erniitting  the  levying  of  an  armed  force  in  a  country  for  the  benefit  ot  | 
some  power  nuiy  be  in  itself  an  act  of  more  or  less  open  hostility  toward 
smother  nation.    The  crime  of  levying  troops  for  exciting  an  insurrec 
tion  within  the  kingdom  is  not  embraced  in  this  provision,  because  it  I 
is  considered  as  being  a  crime  committed  against  the  domestic  safety  oil 
the  country. 

Chapter  IV,  (pp.  24(;,  247.) 

Art.  155.  "The  crime  of  piracy  committed  against  Spaniards,  or 
against  the,  subjects  of  another  nation  which  is  not  at  war  with  Spaiu, 
shall  be  punished  with  temporary  or  perpetual  irons." 

"  When  the  crime  shall  have  been  committed  against  non  n.olli^ereiit 
subjects  of  a  nation  at  war  with  Spain,  the  penalty  shall  be  t'  3  gal 
leys." 

This  oft'ense,  which  was  formerly  forbidden  under  the  preceding  chait 
ter,  is  one  of  the  most  odious  which  can  be  committed  ;  it  endangers  tk 
siifety  of  private  persons,  sto])s  the  maritime  intercourse  and  all  nier 
cantile  transactions.  The  very  place  wliere  the  offense  is  committed 
makes  it  still  more  alarming  and  fearful.  It  is  to  bo  noticed  that 
[401]  there  is  no  penalty  denounced  against  the  offense* when  commit 
ted  for  the  injury  of  foreigners  at  war  with  Spain.  The  statutes 
of  all  countries  have  adopted  this  restriction,  on  the  principle  that  it  is 
not  unlawful  to  cripple  an  enemy  on  laud  and  on  the  seas,  not  only  l»,v 
means  of  regular  armies,  but  also  by  means  of  forces  commanded  by 
private  persons,  to  whom  letters  of  m.arque  have  been  issued.  Tbe 
amended  statute  considers  piracy  as  being  a  crime,  and  denounces 
against  it  a  severe  penalty,  when  committed  against  non-belligerent  sub 
jects;  but  duly  authorized  privateering  is  lawful,  if  against  belligerents, 
and  is  not  to  be  mistaken  for  piracy. 


r4f>2] 

Mr.  Ferry,  I 


Siu :  r  rec( 

ling  me  that 

Conn  III  a  for 

wived  also  j) 

doali.    Copit 

J  tbe  consular 

jsome  hlockad 

jtbe  inclosed 

consular  agen 

1  to  the  charg«' 

I  consuls  at  (Jj 

points  a  Gov( 

of  the  pirate  f  I 

itif  which  a  co 

|iiioniiiig  song 

I  showf 

,I6;{J    riffe,  oi 

the  Lai 

|iiii(l  the  royal 

iiul  sent  to  0 

mlicate  in  m.> 

I  ill  preference 

understood 

J  Her  Majesty's 

|s('lf  see  how  g 

ii;,;ain  as  a  pri 

could  Jiave  bul 

it'clai   ition  ag 

i'ii'ate  in  her  ) 

Ivessel  had  con: 

Jlier  authorities 

the  motive  of  ; 

Mr.  Benavid 

tlie  (corsair  'I    1 

insurrection  in 

n<les  replied,  \ 

I  then 

IWj    be  tj-eate 

there  wj 

loubly  guilty. 

I  added  that, 

•oth  under  the 

iiumicipal  law  ( 

lould  attend  tc 

shall  advise  y 

With  the 


Hon.  WiLLii 


[■m] 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES. 


•No.  2.— CASE  OF  THE  STONEWALL. 


95 


Mr.  Pcrrtff  United  StatcH  chartfi'  (Vafaircs,  to  Mr.  Seiraia,  Secretary  of 

State. 

LEUATION   OF   THE   UNITED   STATES, 

Madrid,  February  4,  J  805. 

Sill:  I  received  last  ni{j;lit  a  telegram  from  our  consul  at  Vigo,  inform- 
ing uie  that  a  confederate  i)irate  steamer  had  entered  the  port  of 
I Cornnna  for  repairs,    lie  gives  the  vessel's  name  Stonewall,  but  I  re- 
Icoived  also  private  advice,  late  last  night,  that  the  ship  is  the  Shenan- 
Idoali.    Copies  of  these  documents  go  inclosed,  as  well  as  another  from 
tlie  consular  agent  at  Corunna,  which  1  at  tirst  supposed  to  refer  to 
.Miino  blockade-runner,  and  treated  accordingly.   liefore  daylight  to-day 
the  inclosed  telegrams  had  been  sent  to  tlie  consul  at  Vigo,  to  the 
consular  agent  at  Corunna,  to  the  minister  of  the  United  States  at  London, 
to  the  charge  d'affaires  at  Paris,  to  the  minister  at  Lisbon,  and  to  the 
consuls  at  Cadiz  and  (iibraltar.    I  trust  that  from  some  one  of  these 
points  a  Government  crui.ser  can  be  notified  in  time  to  block  the  egress 
of  the  pirate  from  the  bay.    J  have  also  written  the  note  to  Mr.  Benavides, 
Lf  which  a  copy  goes  inclosed,  and  as  soon  as  the  hour  permitted  this 
liiioruing  sought  him  at  his  own  house  and  placed  the  note  in  his  hands. 
I  showed  him  also  the  account  given  by  our  own  consul  at  Tene- 
|[463J    riffe,  on  the  20th  October  last,  of  the  operation  *effected  between 
the  Jjaurel  and  the  Sea  King,  since  Shenandoah  or  Stonewall, 
1111(1  the  royal  decree  of  ,Iune  17,  lS(il,  and  copies  of  the  telegrams  1 
liad  sent  to  our  consuls.     And  1  said,  also,  that  I  had  not  wished  to 
liiulicate  iu  my  note  any  stei)  to  be  taken  by  Iter  ^lajesty's  government 
|iii  preference  to  another,  but  I  had  made  a  statement  of  the  facts  as 
understood  them,  and  prefer  to  leave  to  the  spontaneous  action  of 
lller  Majesty's  government  the  pro))er  remedy.     1  did  not,  however,  my- 
Isclf  see  how  Spain  could  ever  permit  that  vessel  to  leave  her  ports 
l;ij>aiii  as  a  privateer.    The  article  tirst  of  the  roj-al  decree  of  June  17 
Icould  liave  but  one  meaning,  and  though  my  government  had  made  nx) 
licclai   ition  against  Spain  for  the  lirst  arming  and  ecpiipping  of  this 
I'irate  lu  her  waters,  unbeknown  to  her  authorities,  yet,  now  that  the 
Ivcssel  had  come  again  within  her  jurisdiction,  and  within  the  power  of 
llier  authorities,  if  she  were  again  allowed  to  depart,  could  not  fail  to  be 
Itlie  motive  of  grave  reclamation  from  the  Government  at  Washington. 
Mr.  Benavides  said,  what  you  wish,  then,  is  that  we  should  disarm 
Itlie  corsair  ?    I  said,  what  would  you  do  if  an  armed  force  engaged  in 
liiisiirrection  in  France  should  pass  the  Spanish  frontier  ?    Mr.  Bena- 
|vi(les  replied,  we  should  take  away  their  arms. 

I  then  asked  if  there  was  any  motive  why  this  corsair  should 
|[IC4]    be  treated  otherwise  ?    Mr.  Benavides  *said,  in  his  own  opinion, 
there  was  not ;  and,  besides,  this  particular  ship  seems  to  be 
doubly  guilty. 

I  added  that,  in  my  opinion,  she  must  at  least  be  disarmed  completely, 
[lioth  under  the  dictates  of  international  law  and  the  provisions  of  the 
nuinicipal  law  of  Spain.  Mr.  Benavides  took  my  note  and  said  that  he 
^oiild  attend  to  the  affair  immediately,  and  have  it  set  right  this  day. 
'shall  advise  you  hereafter  what  course  is  taken  by  this  government. 
With  the  highest  respect,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

HORATIO  J.  PERRY. 
Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington. 


■4 


1  I 


■^  '  il 


^^Hp< 

.  -^ 

^^K£ 

K'  ■ 

^^B^ 

1 1 

^^^ 

J  ^^S 

K 

'tiii 

■^B^*< 

^  'f |m 

'V 

'  'I'll 

l' 

\  "\^m 

.  *  t^^y 

-*» 

UlitH 

^ffl 

w^wr 


96 


TUKATV    OF    WASHINGTON I'AI'KUH    ACCOMI'ANVINO 


1- 


n 


Mr.  Jicnachles,  miniHtcf  of  Jot'cifin  o(f'(iirn^  to  Mr.  rrtri/,    United  Statn 

rhart/i'  d'a^lfuin's. 

[Tiaiishition.] 

J)i:pai{t.mi':nt  of  State, 
Madrid,  I'nUue,  February  12,  1<S(m. 

Sill:  1  have  locolvod  your  two  notes  of  tlio  M\\  and  Otli  instant,  in 
whiitli,  after  inforniinj;'  inti  of  the  arrival  of  the  iron-cUul  steamer  Stone 
wall,  \vith  three  jjuns,  300  horsepower,  antl  seventy-nine  men,  at  tlic 
port  of  Ferrol,  you  request  the  jiovernnient  of  Her  Majesty  the  (^uccn 
not  to  permit  the  said  vessel  to  repair  nor  to  take  eoals  ami  provisions, 
otdy  enoujfh  to  last  her  while  in  this  port. 

In  the  present  ease  the  government  of  Her  ^Majesty  must  adhere  to  the 

deeree  of  the  17th  of  June,  18til,  the  object  of  which  was  to  pre 

[405]    vent  Spaniards  from  interfering  •in  the  struggle  now  going  on  in 

the  United  States,  as  all  private  interest  is  stimulated  by  the  hoitc 

of  gain.     It  was  to  be  feared  they  would  take  part  on  either  side. 

In  consecpience  of  this  the  government  of  Her  Majesty  has  ordered 
instructions  to  be  given  to  the  captain-general  of  the  department  of 
Feirol  not  to  i)ermit  other  than  necessary  repairs  to  the  steamer  Stoiic 
wall,  to  be  determined  by  the  commaiuler  of  engineers,  so  as  to  make 
her  sea-worthy,  but  not  to  improve  or  increase  her  sea  fitness  ormilitarv 
efficacy. 

l\\  reference  to  your  remarks  about  the  arrival  of  the  Stonewall 
at  Ferrol,  1  must  say  she  came  with  papers  in  due  form,  without  the 
least  indication  that  she  wished  to  take  on  articles  contraband  of  war; 
whereas  examinations  of  her  damages  show  she  put  in  under  stress,  for 
certain  safety. 

This  being  the  case,  the  government  of  Her  Majesty  could  not  disro 
gard  the  voice  of  humanity  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  laws  of  neu 
tralitj',  and  does  not  think  they  are  violated  by  allowing  a  vessel  only 
the  repairs  strictly  necessary  to  navigate  without  endangering  the  lives 
of  the  crew. 

I  hope  you  will  be  satisfied  with  these  lawful  reasons  for  the  revsolutioii 
in  regard  to  the  Stonewall,  and  will  accept  the  assurances  of  my  most 

distinguished  consideration. 
[460]  *A.  BENAVIDES. 

The  United  States  Charge  d'affaires. 


I.l/r.  lienavides 


i 

ill 


Mr.  Perry,  United  States  charge  d'afaires,  to  Mr.  Seicard,  Secretary  of 

State. 

[Extract.] 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Madrid,  February  20, 1865. 
Sir  :  On  Friday,  the  17tli  instant,  Mr.  Mercier  sent  to  the  Spanish 
minister  of  state  (Mr.  Beuavides)  a  little  note,  inclosing  a  telegraphic 
instruction  from  Mr.  Drouyn  de  Lhnys  to  Mr.  Mercier,  informing  him 
that  a  commission  rogatoire  had  issued  from  the  French  government  to 
inquire  into  the  circumstances  of  the  abduction  of  several  French  sailors 
by  the  Stonewall,  as  was  alleged,  against  their  will,  and  directing  him 
to  request  the  Spanish  government  to  detain  that  ship  until  this  busi- 


COrXTKR    f'ASE    OF    TIIK    IMTKF*    STATr.S. 


97 


iK'ss  coiiIjI  1)0  sottlod.     I  saw  tlu»  original  unto  nnd  tin'  tolo^rram  as  it 
was  (IcriplKM'tMl  iiiiil  st'iit  to  till' Sp.jiiisli  state  Ui'imrtiuiMit. 
Witli  st'iitiiiK'iits  of  thr  lii;;lit'st  icsin-ct,  sir,  voiir  (thcdit'iit  servant, 

lioKATio  J.  n:iM{V. 

Hon.  William  H.  Shwaud, 

/Secretary  of  State,  WashliHjfnti. 


l/c.  I'ory,    United  States  ehanje  (Vaf)'iiires,  ti>  Mr.  Seirnnl,  Secretary  itf 

State. 


I(w] 


•[Kxtract.] 


Lk(;atio.\  or  tiik  TJmtkd  Statks, 

Madrid,  Fihrimry  iM,  1S0."». 
Sut:  1  liavi'  the  honor  to  transmit,  inclostMl,  the  transhition  of  Mr. 
r.iiia\  itU's's  note  to  me  ()f  the  I'lst  instant,  in  reply  to  mine  of  the  IStli 
instant,  wliieli   was  forwardetl  as  inclosure  C  of  dispatch  Xo.  KJS,  of 
I't'briiarv  -l>.     This  note  eonfirms  the  resalt  announced  to  yoa  in  that 
ilisjiatcli.     Last  ni;iht  in  company  I  saw  Mr.  lU-navides  and  ini|uir»'il  ol 
liiiii  if  tliis  note  was  intended  to  be  tlie  end,  or  wliether  repairs  on  the 
Stonewall  would  ever  be  recommenciMl  in  this  Jurisdiction,     Mr.  IJena- 
vides  said   no,  that   this  was  the  end  of  repairs  on  that  shii),  and  that 
such  was  the  meaidn^'  of  his  note. 
With  sentiments  of  the  highest  respoct,  sir,  your  ol)edient  servant, 

lk)KATlO  J.  TLUKY. 
Hon.  William  IF.  Skwaud, 

Secretary  o/  State,  Washington. 


/ 


.  I 


II  J' 


[Inelosiiie.]  * 

\Mr.  liennviiles,  minister  of  foreiyn  affairs,  to  Mr.  Perry,  chnrgi'  (Vaffaire*. 

[Translation.] 

Dki'Aktment  of  State, 

Madrid,  Palace,  Feltruary  21,  1S05. 

Sir  :  I  have  bad  the  honor  to  receive  your  note  of  the  ISth  in- 

t()8j    stant,  in  which  you  are  so  good  as  to  *maidfest  to  me,  referring; 

to  telegraphic  di.spatehe.s  of  the  consular  agent  of  the   riiitcd 

(f^tivtes  at  Ferrol,  that  after  the  termination  of  the  repairs  on  the  iron 

liul  steamer  Stonewall  this  vessel  is  still  not  in  a  condition  to  take  the 

pas,  because  of  certain  radical  defects  of  cnstrnction  which  you  sidicit 

kniiy  not  be  i)ermitted  to  be  remedied  in  the  ship-yard  of  the  said  port 

Y  Ferrol,  nor  in  any  other  in  Spain. 

Tile  reasons  w  hich  you  present  in  support  of  your  wishes  have  been  duly 
(Iipreciated  by  the  government  of  the  Queen,  which,  being  convinced  of 
Its  duty  not  to  separate  its  eoiuluct  from  the  line  marked  out  for  it  in 
Ihe  royal  decree  of  June  17,  18(il,  has  dictated  the  proper  orders  that 
|t  be  tlius  done  in  the  case  to  which  you  refer. 
The  miinsterof  marine, confirming  the  orders  previ'  islycommunicateil. 
jluit  the  repairs  which  might  be  made  on  the  Stonew.iil  should  not  be  such 
^s to  better  her  military  or  seagoing  qualities,  has  instructed  the  naval 
7  A— II 


p 

if 

-1  - 

fa* 

' 

98 


TREATY    OF    WASHIiNGTON PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 


authority  at  Ferrol  to  strictly  comply  with  tliose  orders,  and  not  to 

l)crmit  any  other  work  on  the  said  vessel  than  that  qualilied  l>v 

[40!)]    tiie  commandant  of  naval  engineers  *as  indispensable  to  repair 

tile  particular  damage  which  obliged  her  to  come  into  the  puit 

where  she  now  is. 

I  take  pleasure  in  believing  that  yon  will  find  this  resolution  of  Ilcr 
Majesty's  government  in  accordance  with  the  suggestion  of  the  note  t(i 
whiih  1  reply,  and  I  avail  myself  of  this  occasion  to  renew  to  you  the 
assurance  of  my  distinguished  consideration. 

A.  BENAVIDES. 
The  CiiARGK  D'AFFAIRES  of  the  United  States. 


i^ ' 


■■  ^tii 


[470]    *Mr.  Perry,  United  Statefi  chnn/e  d'affaires,  to  Mr.  Benarides.  min- 
ister of  foreign  affairs. 

Madrid,  March  7,  1805, 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  copy  of  a  dispatch  received  from 
the  consul  of  the  United  States  at  Liverpool,  wiiich  informs  me  that 
about  thirty  men,  formerly  belonging  to  the  i)irate-ship  Florida,  engagtd 
in  tiie  military  service  of  the  rebel  faction  now  in  insurrection  in  tiie 
United  States,  are,  or  soon  will  be,  on  their  way  to  join  the  iron-clad 
vessel  Stonewall  now  at  anchor  at  the  port  of  Ferrol.  Fortius  purpose 
it  was  supposed  they  would  be  sent  by  steamer  from  Calais  to  some  port 
in  Spain,  but  it  is  also  very  possible  that  they  may  proceed  by  land 
from  that  iilace  to  Ferrol. 

In  laying  these  tjuits  before  your  excellency  I  have  to  beg  that  tbt 
l>roi>er  orders  be  issued  to  Her  Majesty's  authorities  on  the  frontiers  dl 
Fiance  and  I'ortugal,  and  at  all  the  i)orts  on  the  Atlantic  coast,  not  to 
permit  the  entrance  into  Spain  of  these  men  in  the  military  service  ot 
the  so-called  Confederate  States  for  the  purpose  of  joining  the  arnnd 
e.\i)e<lition  i)reparing  aboard  the  Stonewall  to  make  war  ui»on  the  Uniti-il 
States,  but  to  impede  tiieir  journey  in  that  direction,  and  sejjarate  tluiii 
ettectually  from  tiiat  port.  I  beg  also  that  renewed  orders  may  be  giviii 
to  the  authorities  at  Ferrol,  in  view  of  these  facts,  to  prevt-nt  by  even 
means  in  the  power  of  Iler  Majesty's  government  the  joining  o! 
|471]  more  men  to  *this  armed  expedition  aboard  the  steamer  Stone 
wall,  whether  they  [)resent  themselves  singly  or  in  bands,  couiin^ 
by  sea  or  land  to  that  i)ort. 

And  I  avail  myself  of  this  occasion  to  renew  to  your  excellencv  tin- 
assurance  of  mv  most  distinguished  consideration. 

IIOKATIO  J.  PEKKY. 

J I  is  Excellency  the  Minister  of  State  of  Her  Catholic  Mujtsty. 


The  military  gorernor  of  Ferrol  to  the  consular  agent  of  the  United  Staf(%\ 

[Translation.] 

In  reply  to  your  communication  of  the  7th  instant,  I  bare  ordered 
the  commandant  sergeant-major  of  this  fortified  place  to  pass  oa  boardi 
the  confeder.ate  brig  Stonewall,  and  claiui  of  her  commander  the  iiidi  I 
viduals  belonging  to  the  English  ship  Cleodon  moored  iu  this  ship-yardl 


not  to 

IumI  1>v 

repair 

»e  puvt 

of  Hcv 
note  to 
ou  tbe 

DES. 


COUNTER   CASE    OF   THE    UNITED    STATES. 


99 


(if  the  Grava ;  having  answered  the  former  tliat  not  one  of  said  indi- 
viduals had  enlisted  in  the  vessel  nnder  his  eoinmand,  and  that,  in  ob- 
strviuice  of  nentrality,  of  the  seventy-nine  men  of  the  '-rew  with  which 
slie  entered  port  the  sai«l  brig  now  liU'i<ed  two.  And  1  have  the  pleas- 
liiii'  to  transmit  this  to  you  in  reply  to  your  said  communication, 

God  guard  you  many  years. 

The  biigadier-governor, 

JOS£  DE  LA  ZENDIFA. 

Feurol,  March  10,  18G5. 


\eH.  mm- 

,  1805. 

ed  lidui 
me  that 
engagt'd 
u  in  tbe 
iron-clatl 

jjurpuse 
ome  \nn\ 

by  laiul 

that  tLt 
mtiers  ot 
t,  not  to 
ervice  ot 
lie  arnii'tl 
e  L'niteil 
ate  thi'iii 
be  givtu 
by  every 
lining  ot 
t*r  Stone 

S,  C<»Ulillr  I 

|lenc\  tliel 
ElUiY. 


ted  ^ta\M 


orden^i 
I  on  b(»ar(l! 
the  iudi 
Jshipyaull 


|[472]    *Mr.  Bcnavides,  minister  of  foreif/n  affairs,  to  Mr.  Ferry,  United 

IStates  charge  d\iff'aires. 

[TrausljitioL'i] 

Department  of  State, 

I'alace,  Madrid,  March  21,  1805. 

Sir  :  Iteserving  the  privilege  to  communicate  to  you  whatever  the 
aiitliorities  of  tiie  Ferrol  may  reply  hereafter  with  respect  to  the  fraudn- 
|('iit  increase  of  the  crew  of  the  corsair  Stonewall,  to  which  your  notes 
Dt  tlie  Ttli  instant  refer,  I  have  the  iionor  now  to  communicate  tiiat  the 
fciiptiiin-general  of  that  maritie  department  said,  in  a  telegram  the  day 
pi'tore  yesterday  to  tlie  minister  of  marine,  that  the  Stonewall  had  not 
Unlisted  any  men  at  all. 

1  avail  myself  of  this  occasion  to  renew,  &c.,  &c. 

A.  BENAYIDES. 

Tlie  Charge  d'affaires  of  the  United  States. 


Bcnavides,  minister  of  foreiffn  affairs,  to  Mr.  Perry,   United  States 

charge  d'affaires. 

[Transliition.] 

DEPAin'HENT   OF   STATE, 

Madrid,  Palace,  March  22,  1805. 
Sir;  1  have  the  honor  to  reply  to  your  notf  of  yesterday  rehitive  to 
111'  eiilistment  of  seamen,  which,  it  is  said,  the  confederate  steamer 
Stonewall  has  ett'ected  at  the  Ferrol;  that  the  same  day  I  trans- 
]    ferred  it  to  the  minister  of  marine  for  him  to  *a(lo[)t  tin;  proper 
measures  to  procure  that  the  comnnunlor  ol  said  vessel  should 
^t  on  shore  tlie  men  which  it  seems  he  has  fraudulently  embarked. 
I  avail  myself  of  the  occasion,  «&c.,  &c. 

A.  BENAYIDES. 
I  Tlie  Charge  d'affaires  of  the  United  States. 


It.  Perry,  United  States  charge  d'^aff'aires,  to  Mr.  Bcnavides,  minister  of 

foreign  affairs. 

[Traiislatiou.] 


Madrid,  March  23,  1805. 

ISiR:  I  have  just  learned  that  yesterday  and  to-day,  after  two  at- 
uipts  which  the  vessel  Stonewall  has  made  to  leave  the  bay,  finding 


*               r 

i 

1 

'  ^4Ut 

.fvipi 

y  ■■'■ ,  >■•■ 

^eH' 

\  -l  i" 

iJHt 

I ;  { 

fi 

'  ': 

^:. :  -r; 

f.: 

r  ,.■  !i" 

^■'y-H  •' 

J  '>    ■- 

;     •'        .h     • 

.  ^   1  ■■'■ 

-• 

};■ 

1,    is. 

*      .'4 

i         'V'l 

»         '-'  -i' 

S               ■!      tv 

S           !■     . 

'•■  ■  ■ 

u 

Mi!i 


Ill^llill 


100 


TRKATY    OF    WASHINGTON PAPERS    ACCOMPANYING 


tliat  her  sca-goiiiff  qualities  do  not  permit  her  to  sustain  tlie  movement 
ol"  a  heavy  sea,  slie  has  returned  again  to  the  port  of  Kerrol,  and  will 
seek  to  obtain  froiu  Her  Majesty's  authorities  permission  to  make  tlic 
rejjairs  whieh  she  needs. 

Your  excellency  will  call  to  mind  the  note  which  I  had  the  honor  tn 
address  you  on  tlie  18th  of  last  month,  and  that  in  which  your  excel 
lency  was  pleased  to  reply,  dated  the  21st  of  the  same  month,  as  will 
as  the  verbal  confirmation  you  gave  me,  saying  that  the  Stonewall 

would  not  be  permitted  todo  any  more  work  or  repairs  in  the  Span 
[474J    ish  ship-yards  than  those  repairs  which  she  had  already  *ternii 

nated.     I  had  the  satisfaction  to  transmit  these  assurances  iinnic 
diately  to  the  Government  at  Washington,  thus  attenuating  the  impoi 
tance  of  the  conflict  marked  by  my  protest  of  the  0th  of  Febvuan, 
which  made  the  government  of  Her  Catliolic  Majesty  responsible  for  the 
consequences  which  might  follow  from  the  grant  of  repairs  of  this  ves  , 
sel.    I  now  come  to  inform  your  excellency  that,  in  effect,  tlie  constructor  | 
of  the  Stonewall  came  from   Bordeaux  to  Ferrol,  and  after  an  exam 
ination  of  the  vessel  indicated  the  work  which  was  to  be  done,  for  whidi 
he  said  that  the  ship  oiight  to  apply  to  enter  any  dock.    I  had  also  tliei 
resolution  arrived  at,  relative  to  this  work  by  the  so-called  Comman(l(i[ 
Darron,  commanding  this  naval  department  of  the  Confederate  States 
of  America,  whose  headquarters  are  at  Paris,  where  Captain  Page,  iii| 
the  Stonewall,  repaired  to  consult  upon  this  business. 

The  movements  of  the  Stonewall  recently,  toshow  that  shecannotkeep 
the  sea  in  the  state  in  which  she  now  is,  are  clearly  connected  with  tlusi  I 
antecedents,  and  we  ought  to  expect  i  m  mediately  her  demand  to  Her  Miij  j 
esty's  authorities  to  be  permitted  to  begin  the  work.    Hut  I  rely  in  com 
Ijlete  security  upon  the  good  faith  of  Her  Majesty's  government,  amll 

since  the  assurances  which  your  excellency  has  been  pleased  tn 
|47oJ    give  me  by  word  and  writing,  I  know  that  *no  work  of  repaii>[ 

whatever  will  be  permitted  to  this  vessel,  within  thisjurisdictioii,! 
besides  the  re])airs  she  already  received  in  February,  and  that  '   Imf 
sea-going  <jMalities  will   not  permit  her  to  keep  the  sea  with  deaw 
weather,  she  will  have  no  resource  but  to  wait  for  better  weather  aiitl  a[ 
sea  more  adai)ted  to  her  bad  condition. 

In  this  connection  I  avail  myself  of  the  oc(!asion  to  renew  to  yoiirj 
excellencv  the  assurance  of  my  most  distinguished  consideration. 

HOliATIO  J.  PFKKY. 


Tiie  Unitej) 


I 

;    i 


1.1 


Mr.  Bcnavidcs^  minister  of  foreign  a  fairs,  to  Mr.  Perry,  United  Staki\ 

charge  d^af aires. 

[Translation.] 

Hepartmknt  of  State, 

Madrid,  Palace,  March  24,  lSf)'>. 
Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  as  soon  as  I  re«;eived  yo" 
note  of  yesterday  relative  to  the  confederate  steamer  Stonewall,  I  coiul 
municated  it  to  the  minister  of  marine,  charging  him  that  under  nopri^j 
text  should  he  permit  any  work  whatsoever  to  be  done  on  said  vesstl  " 
I  avail  myself  of  this  occasion  to  renew,  &c.,  &c., 

A.  BENAVIDES. 
The  CnARGi5  d'affaires  of  the  United  States. 


COINTER   CASE    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES. 


101 


476]    *Mr.  Benevides,  minister  of  foreign  a  fairs,  to  Mr.  Perri/,  Uniteri 

(States  charge  iVaffaircs. 

Depahtment  of  State, 

Madrid,  FdUu-e,  April  1,  18(»5. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that,  according  to  the  report 
ilivcMi  by  the  cai*tain  f^eneral  of  the  department  of  f'errol,  to  the  niin- 

j  jster  of  marine,  the  Stonewall  left  that  port  on  the  24th  of  March  last, 
lit  liiilf-past  10  o'clock  in  the  morning,  accompanied  by  Her  Majesty's 

I  frijrate  Conception. 
At  noon  the  frigate  being  within  the  following  limits :  Cai)o  Prior. 

I  north  .")3o  east,  Coriinna  liglit,  south  .'^2°  east,  and  the  Stonewall  about 
one  mile  ahead,  about  west-northwest  of  the  meridian,  the  Conception 
stopped  her  engine,  lowered  and  raised  her  ensign,  with  a  cannon-shot,  to 

[signify  to  the  confederate  vessel  the  extent  of  the  jurisdictional  zone,  and 
then  steamed  back  slowly  to  the  mouth  of  the  port  of  Ferrol,  where  she 
remained  to  watch  the  movements  of  the  Stonewall,  which  vessel  came 
back  about  2  p.  m.,  hoisting  Spanish  colors  at  the  foretop  as  a  signal  lor 

I  communication. 
Tiie  commander  of  the  Conception  says : 

Tlicy  sent  the  luato,  to  nie  to  ask  perinissiou  to  return  to  the  entrance  of  the 
|[477]  harhor  and  conunnnicate  with  shore.  I  rel'nsed  permission,  and  said  as  "tliey 
had  re])aired  dauiaKt'S)  and  gone  oiit  withont  new  accidents;  tiiey  conhl  con- 
Itiiiiifi  on  their  coui-se.  Tlie  boat  went  hack,  hut  soon  returned,  insistin<>;  on  tlie  de- 
|iii;iii(l.  I  a{j;ain  refused,  and  ad(h'd  that  it  was  an  abuse  of  li()si)itality.  I  altorward 
>tiiun('d  a  litth;  north  of  nunidian,  ami  lindin<;the  Stonewall  nine  or  ten  miles  nortii, 
[lit  4oclockI  returned  to  this  port,  (Ferrol,)  where  I  anchored  at  Inilf-past  4. 

hi  communicatiug  toyou  these  details,  as  another  proof  of  the  desire 
lot'  the  government  of  the  Queen  my  lady  to  comply  strictly  with  tlie 
Idiities  of  neutrality  imposed  by  the  royal  decree,  and  to  preserve  and 
Idiltivate  the  good  relations  existing  between  Spain  and  the  United 
liStates,  I  repeat  the  tassurance  of  my  distinguished  consideration. 

A.  BENAVIDES. 

The  United  States  CiiarctE  d'affaires. 


4781 


*  V  I .— S  W  I  T  Z  E  R  L  A  N  D  . 


Xo.  1.  Code  penal  federal. 

Xo.  2.  Notification  concerning  neutrality,  1859. 

Xo.  3.  Neutrality  ordinance,  1859. 

Xo.  i.  Report  on  neutrality,  1859. 

X(,.  5.  Foreign-enlistment  act,  1859. 

Xo.  (I.  Message  of  the  federal  council  concerning  the  maintenance  of 
niMitnility,  1870. 

Xo.  7.  Neutrality  ordinance,  1870. 

Xo.  8.  Message  of  the  federal  council  concerning  the  maintenance  of 
pt'Utrality. 

|4S(),181] 


1"^]  »Na.  1.— CODE  PflNAL  FriDfiRAL. 

[Extrait.] 
SecoiVDE  partie. —  Des  diverses  espi^ees  de  crimes  et  de  delits. 
TiTRE  II. — Des  crimes  et  des  delits  contre  les  etats  etrangers. 
Art.  41.  Quicouque  viole  uu  territoire  etraager,  ou  commet  tout  autre 


102 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON — PAPERS    ACCOMPANYING 


■Mi 


actc  coiitraire  an  droit  des  gens,  est  puui  de  remprisouiiemeut  ou  il^ 
raineiule. 

Akt.  42.  L'outrago  public  envers  niie  nation  etrangvre  ou  son  sou 
verain,  on  un  gouvoineinent  etranger,  sera  puni  d'une  amende  qui  pent 
ctre  i)ortee  a  fr.  2,000  et,  dans  des  cas  graves,  etre  cumulee  avec  .six 
mois  au  plus  d'emprisonnernent.  Les  poursuites  ne  peuvent  toutefois 
Otre  exercees  que  sur  la  demande-du  gouvernemeut  etranger,  i)ourvii 
(pi'il  y  ait  reciprocite  envers  la  confederation. 

AiiT.  4;3.  L'outrage  ou  les  niauvais  traiteinents  eserces  envers  le  iv 
presentant  d'une  puissance  etrangere  accredite  aupres  de  la  conledt'ia 
tion,  sont  punis  de  deux  ans  au  plus  d'euiprisonnement  et  d'une  aiueiidi 

qui  pent  s'eleve :  a  2,000  francs. 
[483]       *Akt.  44.  La  poursuite  et  le  jugeinent  des  cas  pr^vus  aux  ar 
tides  41,  42  et  43  n'ont  lieu  que  sur  la  decision  du  conseil  fedenil 
confonuenient  i\  Particle  4  de  la  loi  fed^rale  sur  la  procedure  penale  ilii  | 
27  aout  1851. 

Ainsi  decrete  par  le  conseil  national  Suisse. 

lierne,  le  3  fevrier  1853. 

Au  noni  du  conseil  national  Suisse. 

Le  President,  HUNGEEBCLEE. 
Le  Secretaire,  SCHIESS. 

Ainsi  d(k',r«!te  par  le  conseil  des  etats  Suisse. 

Berne,  le  4  fevrier  1853. 

Au  noni  du  conseil  des  etats  Suisse. 

Le  Fresident,  F.  BRIATTE. 

Le  Secretaire,  J.  KEli^-GElnIA^'^, 


si  f.  •■ " 


V- 


No.  2.— NOTIFICATION  DU  CONSEIL   ¥Fj)fAi\h  CONC^ERXANT   EA  NELTiiA 
LITf:  DE  LA  SUISSE,  (DU  14  MAKS  1859.)  | 

Bien  quo  les  etats  de  I'Eiirope  jouissent  pleinement  aujourd'hui  (lo« 
bienfaits  de  la  paix,  I'on  ne  saurait  disconvenir  que  la  contlance  (lausl;i| 

stabilite  de  cet  etat  de  clioses  n'ait  subi  un  ebranleinent  et  q\\"\ 
[484]    n'existe  des  motifs  d'admettre  *que  la  tranquillite  generale  poumj 

('tre  troublee  par  hi  possibilite  de  graves  evcneuients. 
])ans  de  telles  conjonctures,  la  Suisse  doit  a  sa  diguite,  a  son  caraottie 
d'etat  indei)endant  et  libre,  couime  i\  sa  constitution  politi(iue  et  a  soul 
organisation,  de  se  prononcer  a  temps  et  sans  detour  sur  I'attitude  qu'elltj 
se  piopose  d'(jbserver  en  regard  dc  certaines  eventualites,  suivaiit 
position  qui  lui  est  faite  par  sa  situation,* son  histoire,  ses  besoins  iiiU*| 
rieurs  et  ses  rai)ports  avec  les  etats  etraugers. 

Le  conseil  federal  le  declare  done  de  la  manirre  la  plus  formelle,  si  Inl 
paix  de  I'Europe  vient  X  ctre  troublee,  la  confederation  suisse  defeiuliil 
et  maintiendra,  par  tons  les  moyens  dout  elle  dispose,  I'integrite  et  lal 
neutralite  de  son  territoire,  auxquelles  elle  a  droit  en  sa  quality  d'etatl 
independant,  etqui  lui  out  ete  solennellemeut  reconnues  et  garanties  pari 
les  traites  europeens  de  1815.  Elle  accomplira  loyalement  cette  missioiij 
envers  tons  egalement. 

Les  traites  de  1815  ddclarent,  en  outre,  que  certaines  portions  du  terl 
ritoire  de  la  Savoie,  qui  font  partie  integrante  des  ^tats  de  sa  Majesu| 

le  Koi  de  Sardaigne,  sont  comprises  dans  la  neutralite  suisse. 
[485]       *11  resulte en effetdeces  traites,  savoir :  ladeclaratiou des  hautesj 


jT^n'i 


COUNTER   CASE    OF   THE   UNITED    STATES. 


103 


puissances  dn  20  mars  l?<l.j  et  Tacte  d'accossion  de  la  diote 
siiisso  du  12  aofit  l.Sl.i,  I'afte  final  dn  conorrs  dc  Vionne  dn  0  jnin 
181;'),  (Art.  02,)  la  paix  do  Paris  dii  20  noveinbre  181"),  (Art.  3,)  ct 
I'acte  <ln  nn'me  jour  portant  refonnaissance  ot  <>:  .rantie  de  la  nentralit*' 
periK'tiielle  de  la  Suisse  et  de  Tinviolabilite  de  son  tenitoire,  que  les 
parties  de  la  Savoie  desij^iees  dans  ees  aetes  sont  au  benefice  de  la  meine 
neutrality  que  la  Suisse,  avec  la  clause  speciale  que,  "toutes  les  fois  que 
les  puissances  voisines  de  la  Suisse  se  trouveront  en  etat  d'Iiostilit(''s 
ouvertes  on  imniinentes,  les  troupes  de  sa  Majeste  le  Roi  de  Sardai<»iie 
qui  pourraient  se  trouver  dans  les  provinces  neutralisecs,  se  retireront 
et  ponrrout,  a  <'et  etiet,  passer  par  le  Valois,  si  cela  devieut  necessaire  ; 
qu'aucunes  autres  troui>es  arnu-es  d'aueune  puissance  ne  iH)urront  y 
stationner  ni  les  traverser,  sauf  celles  que  la  confederation  Suisse 
jugerait  s\  propos  d'y  placer.^ 

Les  dispositions  preciteesdes  traites  g^neraux  ont  6t6  expressement 
confirinees  dans  tons  leurs  points  par  le  traite  special,  qui  a  etc  conclu 
lelO  mars  ISIO,  eutrelaconfi'deration  etsaMajestc  leKoi  de  Sardaigne. 

Sideslorslescirconstancesle  rcclanient,et  pourautant  que  la  uie- 
[480J  sure  sera  n«'cessaire  pour  assurer  et  defendre  sa  neutralite  et  *l'in- 
tegfrite  de  son  territoire,  la  confederation  suisse  fera  usage  du 
droit  qui  lui  a  ete  conterepar  les  traites  europccns  d'occuper  les  parties 
neutralisees  de  la  Savoie.  Mais  il  est  bien  entendu  (pie  si  la  confedera- 
tion recourt  a  cette  niesure.  elle  respectera  scrupnleuseinent,  et  sous 
tons  les  rapports,  les  stipulations  des  traites,  et  entre  autres  (!elle  qui  dit 
que  I'occupation  niilitaire  suisse  ne  jiortera  aiicnn  i)rejudice  al'aduiiuis- 
tration  etablie  par  sa  Majeste  sarde  daus  les  dites  provinces. 

Le  conseil  fc(l«*ral  <l«''clare  rpril  s'etlorcera  de  se  mettre  d'accord  arec 
le  {jouvernenient  de  sa  Majeste  le  Itoi  de  Sardaigne  au  sujet  des  con- 
ditions speciales  d'line  telle  fK'Cupation. 

Le  conseil  federal  se  livre,  en  terniinant,  a  I'espoirqueces  d^'clarations, 
iiussi  franclies  que  loyales.  seront  favorablement  accueillies  et  que  les 
liautes  puissances  sauront  parfaitenieut  apprecier  le  point  de  vue 
auquel  il  a  du  se  placer  en  pn-sence  de  la  situation  politique  actuelle  et 
daus  la  prevision  des  eventualites  qui  peuvent  surgir. 
II  saisit  avec  enii)ressenient,  etc. 

Berne,  le  14  mars  l.S."»0. 

Au  uom  du  conseil  federal  suisse. 

Le  President  de  la  Confederation,  ST.EMrFLL 
Le  Chaiicelier  de  la  Conjederation,  SCHIESS. 


[I:*?]   *No.  3.— ORDOXNANCE  COXCERXAXT  EE  MAINTIEN  DE  LA  NEU- 
TRALITE DE  LA  SUIS.sE,  (DU  20  MAI  ISo'J.) 

Le  conseil  federal  suisse.  vonlant  assurer  pour  tous  les  (;as  le  bon 
ordre  sur  les  limites  du  theatre  de  la  guerre  et  prcvenir  tons  les  actes 
non-compatibles  avec  la  position  nentre  de  la  suisse,  se  fondaut  snr 
Tartide  00,  cliiflre  0.  <le  la  constitution  fed«''rale,  et  sur  I'arrcte  de  I'assein- 
blee  federaledn  5  mai  18."»0,  a  arrete  les  dispositions  suivantes,  qui  sont 
imbliees  par  la  presente,  iKiur  que  chaun  ait  ;\  s'y  couformer  : 

Art.  1.  L'exportation  d'armes,  de  poudre  et  de  munitions  de  guerre 
I  en  general  par  la  frontiere  saisse  italienne  est  iuterdite,  ainsi  que  tout 
rassemblement  d'objets  de  cette  nature  dans  la  proximity  de  la  dite 
frontiere. 

Ku  cas  de  contravention,  les  marebandises  seront  mises  sous  sequestra. 


Wh  '■ 


104 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON PAPP:RS   ACCOMPANYING 


AiiT.  2.  Les  amies  et  munitions  qui  scront  apportees  d'ltalio  sur  tor 
litoirc  Suisse  i)ar  «les  ief'a«j[ies  ou  deserteurs,  ou  do  toute autre  niaiiitri'. 

sennit  pareillenient  secpiestrees. 
f48.SJ        *S()nt  ex(!eptes  les  annes  de  v()yaf«,euis   pourvus  d<;  papier 

reyulieis    ou  de  refuyies  qui  se  lendeut  inunediatemeut  «1- 
rinterieur  de  la  Huisse. 

Art.  .'].  II  est  interdit  d'aelieter  ou  en  geneial  de  prendre  possession 
d'arnies,  munitions  et  objets  d'e(iuipement  apportes  par  des  deserteiirs 
l)ar  dela  la  frontiere,  et  les  objets  de  cette  nature  seront  saisis  lors  meiue 
qu'ils  seraieut  trouves  entre  les  mains  de  tierces  persounes. 

Art.  4.  Les  rel'ugies  ou  d('*serteurs  arrivant  dans  les  territoires  linii 
trophes  italiens  seront  internes  a  une  distance  conveJiable.  Le  conseil 
federal  fixera  les  limites  de  I'internement  partout  oil  cela  sera  ueces- 
saire. 

Sont  exceptes  les  vieillards,  les  fern mes,  les  enfants,  les  maladeset 
les  jiersonnes  dontou  a  des  niotiis  suflSsauts  d'admettre  qu'elles  se  com- 
porteront  tranqnillement. 

II  ne  seia  tolere  aucun  relusi*'  ou  deserteur  quelconque  sur  le  teni 
toire  an  sud  de  Lugano,  ainsi  que  sur  celui  (jui  s'etend  entre  la  Trosn 
dim  cote  et  Lugano  etBreno  de  I'autre.  iSont  exceptes  les  jiroprietairo 
de  biens-fonds  y  situes,  aussi  lougtemps  qu'ils  se  comporterout  trau 

quillement. 
1 4S0]        Dans  le  cas  on  des  rel'ugies  ou  deserteurs  *se  concentreraient  en 
tro})  grand  nonil)re  dans  les  districts  situes  eu  arriere,  le  conseil 
federal  se  reserve  d'aviser  ulterieurement. 

Les  ivfugies  ou  deserteurs  qui  ne  se  soumettent  pas  aux  ordres  do 
autorites,  ou  donnerontd'ailleurs  matiere  a  des  reclauuitions,  seront  iiii 
media teinent  renvoyes. 

Art.  5.  Le  passage  de  gens  aptes  au  port  d'armes  par  le  territdin 
Suisse  pour  se  rendre  du  territoire  de  I'une  des  i)uissances  bellijiv 
rantes  sur  celui  de  I'autre  est  interdit.  Los  individus  de  cette  catc 
gorie  seront  envoyes  dans  Tinterieur  de  la  Suisse,  a  moius  qu'ils  ue  pit- 
ti'rent  retourner  sur  leurs  pas. 

Art.  0.  Los  gouvernements  des  cantons  frontieres  Orisons,  Tes-siu 
et  Yalois,  ainsi  que  les  commandants  militaires  en  foiu;tion,  soiit 
charges  de  I'execution  de  la  preseiite  ordonnance.  Le  departement  du 
commerce  et  des  i)eages  est  charge  de  IN'xecution  en  ce  qui  concenie 
la  circulation  interdite  d'armes  et  de  munitions  a  la  frontiere. 

lierne,  le  20  mai  1859. 

Le  PnmJentde  la  ConAWration,  ST.EMPFL.'. 
Le  Chuiwelier  <lc  la  Confederation,  SCHIESS. 


[411(1]     No.  4.— RAPPORT  DF  COXSKIL  PfiDl^RAL  A  I/ASSKMBLT^E  FF.DfiRAI.K 
SUR  LES  .ME8URE8  PiaSES  DANS  L'lNTERET  DE  LA  NEL'TRAMlt 


(DU  1"  J  FILLET  1859.) 


[Extrait.] 


J    '<  tide  G  de  I'arret*^^  que  vous  avez  pris  le  o  mai  dernier,  concernant 
111  pos  ;i()n  ueutre  de  la  Suisse,  porte  que  le  conseil  federal  aura  il  rendre  j 
comptc  {\  la  prochaine  reunioji  de  I'assemblee  federale  de  I'usage  qii'il 
aura  fait  des  pleius  pouvoirs  a  lui  con  ties  en  vertu  du  dit  arret*''. 

Nous  avons  I'lionneur  de  nous  acquitter  de  ce  mandat  eu  y  joignant 
un  expose  des  evenements  qui,  se  rattachar»t  a  la  sitiuition  politique  de  I 
lu  Suisse,  out  fouriii  luatiere  a  des  uegociatious  et  il  des  coirespondauces. 


al,: 


I-'.  J- 


COUNTER   CAS?:    OF   THE    UNITED   STATES. 


105 


Heureusement  que  les  conjoncturos  n'ont  p.as  T'to  do  nature  A  roiulre  nv- 
cessaiie  line  eon  vocation  extnionlinaire  de  Tassemblee  fe;iiciiile. — La 
Fridicc  (htiiH  ses  rapports  accv  les  etats  neutres. 

Iiiiiiiediatement  apre-s  i'ajouineinent  des  eonseils  le-iislatifs,  la  V'gix- 
tioude  France  nous  tit,  au  nom  de  son  goiiverneinent,  une  comnuinicatiou 
spcciale  siir  la  ligne  de  conduite  <jue  lit  Fiance,  inenant  jtour 
t'Jl]  base  les  i)rincipes  du  *congres  de  Paris  d'avril  iSfid,  se  juopo- 
sait  de  snivre a  Tegard  des etats  neutres  pendant  la  y uerie  actuelle. 
II  n'salte  de  ces  ouvertures  que  les  coniniaiidants  des  forces  de  terre  et 
iK'  iiier  out  reyu  pour  instruction  de  respecter  ri^oureuseineiit  les  droits 
des  territoires  et  du  coininerce  des  etats  neutres;  on  expriniait  en 
iiK'iiie  temps  Tattente  que,  par  une  Juste  n'-ciprocite,  la  Suisse  obscrveiait 
exiutenient  peiulant  la  duree  de  la  guerre  les  devoirs  d'une  stricte  neu- 
tralite.  Cette  declaration  pouvait  etre  consideree  coiiiine  une  nouvelle 
continnation  de  ce  <pie  la  Suisse  avait  constaininent  desire  vis  a  vis  de 
ses  voisius,  savoir,  I'observation  d'une  stricte  neutralite,  devant  diriser 
toiitc  sa  conduite,  ainsi  qu'il  est  expos«'^  en  detail  dans  la  circulaire  du 
Ulnars. 

Dans  le  canton  du  Tessin,  la  surveillance  des  nombreux  refiisies  ve- 
iiaut  d'ltalie  devait  reclamer  a  uii  baut  de^iie  ratteiition  des  autorites. 
II  ctait  pareillenient  indispensable  d'aviser  a  des  inesures  sur  la  circula- 
tiou  d'arines  et  de  munitions.  Les  dispositions  (pie  nous  avons  Juge 
lU'Voir  ordonner  successiveinent  se  trouvent  resuuiees  dans  la  publica- 
tion qui  a  paru  le  20  niai.  On  y  interdisait  la  sortie  d'arnies,  <le 
402]  poudie,  *de  munitions  par  la  trontiere  suisse  italienne,  ainsi  (pie 
tout  lasseirblemeiit  d'ol>jets  de  cette  nature  a  proximit('  de  la  froii- 
titre,  sous  peine  de  conllscation  en  cas  de  contravention. 

Los  amies  et  les  munitions  qui  seraient  apport('*es  d'ltalie  sur  terri- 
toiie  Suisse,  soit  par  des  r(^'fugi(3S  et  des  d(jserteurs  ou  de  toute  autre 
iiianiere,  devaient  aussi  etre  saisies.  fitaient  exceptees  de  cette  nu^sure 
Its  amies  de  vo.vafteurs  munis  de  papiers  r(3guliers  ou  de  retugies  qui  se 
U'lulraient  iiniiKidiatement  dans  rint(5rieur  ile  la  Suisse. 

L'achat  et  en  g(^'n(3ral  la  prise  de  possession  d'armes,  munitions  et  ob- 
ji'ts  d  e(piipemeiit  qui  seraient  apport(^es  en  deca  de  la  trontiere  fureut 
iiiterdits  et  ordre  (3tait  donn(3  de  s(^Mpiestrer  de  tels  objets. 

Le  passage  tut  interdit  aux  individus  aptes  au  ])ort  d'armes  qui  voii- 
ilraiciit  euiprunter  le  territoire  Suisse  pour  se  reudre  du  territoire  d'une 
les  juiissances  bellig(3raiites  surcelui  de  I'autre.     Ces  gens  devaient  ('*tre 
(uiisigues  dans  l'int«jrieur  de  la  Suisse,  a  moiiis  qu'ils  ne  pi(}I(}iassent 
ictourner  la  d'oii  ils  venaient.     Ces  dispositions  sont  absolument  con- 
t'oiiiies  au  principe  de  la  neutralit(3  proclain('  et  n'ont  pas  besoin  d'autro 
justitication.     La  d('*tense  mise  surle  transi)ort  d'armes  et  de  mii- 
i'So]    nitions  *est  foiuk'^e  sur  le  droit  des  gens,  et  il  c'tait  pareillement 
indispensable  de  tenir  les  riifugies  sous  une  stricte  surveillance 
't  tie  ne  pas  permettre  qu'lh^  abusassent  de  I'asile  qui  lenr  t^tait  lib(kale- 
iiit'iit  accordc',  pour  menacer  les  parties  belligerantes  ou  rendre  plus  dif- 
ficile la    surveillance  des  frontieres  par  nos  propres  troupes.    Notre 
kommandant  de  division,  que,  dans  I'intt^ret  de  I'unitc'   d'action,  nous 
avious  charge  du  maintien  de  la  police  des  iefugi(3s,  re^-ut  pour  instruc- 
tion de  luoci^'der  avec  human'  e  et  d'avoir  (''gard  aux  circonstaiices  par- 
liculieres,  et  nous  pouvons  certifier  qu'it  cet  ('gard  il  a  616  fait  tout  ce 
l'iue  Ton  pouvait  raissonablement  demander  dans  des  conjouctures  aussi 
jtlitlicik's;  naturellenient  ou  n'a  pu  thiter  que  certaines  inesures  fusseut 
jtrtiiivces  trop  rigoureuses  par  la  population  int«3ress(ie,  qui  n'(}tait  pas  a 
UM'uie  d'apprt^cier  impartialeiuent  la  position  de  la  Suisse  dans  ses  rap- 
l>orts  iuteruatiouaux.    Pour  piouver  a  quel  poiut  il  a  ete  teuu  compte 


«1   '( 


<  I 


■  ;f^ 


'     ( 


1 


•^.1 


liif^ 


106 


TREATY   OF   WASHINGTON' PAPERS    ACCOMPANYINO 


do8  clrcoTist.mcos  partionlioros,  il  sufflt  <Tn  fait  qn'suuMiii  rofufjio  «lo  la 
chisHc  (civile  n'a  eto  consiji'iie  dans  I'iiiteiieur  dc  la  SiiisHO,  et  qn'ils  out 
tons  \ni  it'stor  dans  Iccaiiioii  dii  Tessin,  en  mi  tenant,  coinnie  ii  s'tMitciul 
dc  .soi-int'inc,  i\  unc  distan(!o  coiivenable  de  I'extronic  frontitrc, 
[494]  .  .  Daiisnotre  olHce  nous  rappelions  que  la*Suisse  avait  souffcit 
vivementdes  capitulations  inilitaire8i)endantunelo!igueseried'aii 
iiees,  et  qn'ai)res  bieu  des  luttes  on  «''tait  parvenu  dans  ees  derniers  temps 
a  les  suppiinier,  puisque  aussibien  leseonstitutionseantonalesque  la  con 
stituf  ion  lederale  posent  le  prineipe  qu'aueune  capitulation  niilitaire  iic 
l»eut  plus  dorenavant  etie  conclue.  La  legislation  tederale  a  fait  un  pus 
de  plus.  Les  20  juin  1840,  er  24  juillet  1855,  elle  a  declare  la  contimi 
ation  de  I'existence  des  capitulations  niilitaires  inconipatibles  avec  les 
bases  politiques  de  I'organisation  r^publicainecK'niocratique  de  la  Suisse, 
et  en  consequence  interdit  sur  tout  le  territoire  de  la  confederation  tons 
enrolements  pour  le  service  niilitaire  (stranger.  Ello  a  de  plus,  dans  le 
code  penal  federal,  reprinie  par  I'eniprisonneuientetl'anieiide  lerecrntc 
nientd'liabitants  de  la  Suisse  pour  le  service  inilitaire  etranger,  prohibr 
et  etendu  cette  coinniiiuition  aux  employes  des  bureaux  d'enrolenicnt 
etablis  liors  de  la  Suisse,  atiu  d'eluder  la  prohibition  du  recrutement  siir  | 
territoire  Suisse. 

Toutes  ces  dispositions  ont  6t6  appliqu^es  d'une  nianiere  aussi  const 
quente  que  possible;  j)reuve  en  soit  une  serie  dejugenients  rend  us  con 
tie  des  enibauclieurs.    Si  partout  les  infractions  n'ont  pas  et6  atteiiitcs  | 
par  le  bras  de  la  justice  jKMiale,  si  la  legislation  en  vigueur  n'a  pu  couihi 
completeinent  court  a  I'abus  des  enrolements,  cela  est  dn  lY  d'auties  circou  I 
stances  indepeudantesdes  autorites  fed^irales.  Tandisque  la  Siisse  | 
[495]   et  surtout  les  autorites  federales  font  toutce  qu'elles  *peuvent  i)om 
empecher  les  enri)lements  sur  le  territoire  de  la  confederation,  quel 
qnes  tHatsvoisinstolerent  sans  aucunepudeur  des  bureaux  de  recrutement  I 
qui  font  en  Suisse  des  enrolements  secrets.    Toutes  les  fois  qu'on  a  pii 
attendre  quelque  succes  I'on  a  lie  des  negociations  avec  les  etatsvoisins,  | 
atin  d'obteiiir  la  suppression  des  bureaux  d'enrolement  tolere.    Oesct 
forts  ont  atteint  leur  but  an  nioins  en  partie. 

l!ious  saisissons  cette  occasion  de  vous  rditerer  Tit.,  I'assurance  tie 
notre  parfaite  consideration. 

Berne,  le  1"  juillet  1859. 

Au  nom  du  conseil  federal  Suisse. 

Le  President  de  la  Con/edcrntion,  STJ^^MPFLL 
Le  Chaneelier  de  la  Confederation,  SCHIESS. 


No. 


5,— LOT     FfiDf.RALE    CONCERNANT     LES    ENROLEMENTS   POUR 
SERVICE  MILITAIRE  ETRANGER,  (DU  30  JUILLET  1H59.) 


I'X 


L'assemblee  federale  de  la  confederation  suisse,  sur  le  vu  d'un  rap 
port  et  pr6avis  du  conseil  federal,  arrete: 

Art.  1 .  II  est  interdit  aux  citoyens  suisses  de  prendre  du  service 

[49G]    niilitaire  a  I'etranger  djins  *un  corps  de  troui)es  qui  n'appartient 

pas  a  I'armee  nationale  du  pays,  sans  Pautorisatiou  du  conseil  | 

fed6ral. 

Cette  permission  ne  peut  etre  accord(?e  par  le  conseii  ffiddral  qn'enl 
vue  de  I'instruction  niilitaire,  et  pour  niettre  celui  qui  Pa  obtenue  h,  raeine  | 
de  rendre  des  services  dans  l'arm<5e  f(^d6rale. 

Art.  2.  Tout  Suisse  qui  contreviendra  aux  dispositions  de  Particle  l^'l 
sera  puui  d'uu  emiirisouuemeut  d'un  i\  trois  mois  et  de  la  imvatiou  de 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES. 


107 


m-'i 


sps  droits  polltiques  pour  im  tomps  <iui  ne  pourra  pxcr'der  cinq  ans.     ( Ar- 
ticlos  4  et  7  du  code  penal  federal  du  4  levrier  IHiJiJ.) 

Get  article  ne  deroj;e  en  rien  aux  dispositions  penalos  particulieres 
que  les  lois  led«'rales  on  cantonales  statuent  contre  les  <Mto.vens  <pii,  as- 
treiiits  au  service  niilitairo,  quittent  lo  pays  sans  permission  on  ne 
lepondent  pas  Jl  Pappel  de  la  patrie. 

AUT.  3.  Quiconqne  prati(pie  snr  le  territoire  de  la  confederation  des 
onrolenients  pour  h\  service  etranjicr  on  prete  son  concours  aux  opera- 
tions des  bureaux  de  recrutenient  etablis  en  dehors  de  la  Suisse,  dans  Ic 
but  d'eluder  la  defense  d'enjoler  sur  territoire  Suisse  on  ipii  coopere 
scienmient  i\  ces  enrolenientsd'unemaniere  <pielconque,  parexeni- 
[497]  pie  en  acceptant  *de8deu)audes  de  service,  en  tenant  des  bureaux 
d'adresses,  en  payant  des  frais  de  voyage,  eu  fournissant  des 
feuillesde  route ou  des recommendfitions,  sera,  selon  le  degr6  de  sa  co-op- 
t'lation,  puni  d'un  emprisonnenient  de  deux  niois  it  trois  ans,  d'une  amende 
(]ue  pent  etre  portee  it  1,000  francs  et  de  la  privation  de  ses  droits  poli- 
tiqiics  jusqu'{\  dix  ans. 

Si  le  delinquant  s'est  engage  par  une  convention  st  former  pour  le 
service  d'un  etat  etranger  un  corps  de  troupes  compose  en  entier  ou  eu 
partie  de  ressortissants  suisses,  I'emprisonnement  pent  etre  porte  s\  cinq 
ans,  I'ameude  it  10,000  francs  et  la  privation  €les  droits  politiques  a  dix 
aus. 

Art.  4.  Si  les  autorites  de  quelques  cantons  n'executent  pas  les 
prescriptions  des  lois  federales  contre  le  service  militaire  a  I'etrangor,  le 
couseil  federal  nantira  la  juridiction  peiude  de  la  conlederation  pour 
autant  qu'il  est  necessaire  en  vue  d'assurer  une  egale  application  de  ces 
lois  dans  toutes  les  i)arties  de  la  Suisse. 

Akt.  5.  L'article  05  du  code  penal  federal  du  4fevrier  1853  et  la  lettre 
ddb  Particle  98  du  code  penal,  pour  les  troupes  federales  du  21  aout  1851, 

sont  abroges  et  remplaces  par  la  pr^sente  loi. 
|498]       Art.  0.  Cette  loi  entre  immediatement  *en  vigueur. 
Le  conseil  federal  est  charge  de  son  execution. 

Ainsi  arrete  par  le  conseil  national  Suisse. 

Berne,  le  30  juillet  1859. 

Le  PremJcnt,  PEYER  IM  HOF. 
Le  Secretaire,  SCHIESS. 

Ainsi  arrete  par  le  conseil  des  etats  Suisse, 
lierue,  le  30  juillet  1859. 

Le  President,  F.  BBIATTE. 

Le  Seerctaire,  J.  KEKN-GERMAIJN. 

Le  conseil  fed6ral  decrete  : 

La  loi  ftklerale  ci  dessus  sera  mise  a  execution. 

Berne,  le  3  aout  1859. 

Le  President  de  la  Confederation,   ST.EMPFLI. 

Le  Ghancelier  de  la  Confederation,  SCtllESS. 


Xo,  6.— MESSAGE  DU  CONSEIL  FEDERAL  1  LA  HAUTE  ASSEMBLl^.E  Ffior!- 
KALE  CONCKRNANT  LE  MAINTIEN  DE  LA  NEUTRALITY  PENDANT  LA 
GUERRE  ENTRE  LA  FRANCE  ET  L'ALLEMAGNE,  (DU  28  JUIN  IdTL) 

[Extrait.l 

[499]       .    .    .    *Au  point  de  vue  de  la  police,  la  defense  de  la  neutrality 
n'a  plus  offert  de  difflcultes  particulieres  depuis  uotre  dernier  rap- 
port, du  8  dccembre  1870.    Nous  avous  vu  dimiuuer  les  essais  de  con- 


■r  ^:  <K 

nil 

!  ■"iK 

m 


if:; 


I'l 


nrwr 


108 


TRKATY    OF    VVASIIINGNON I'APKRS    AfrOMPANYING 


M 


I! 


11:1 


trebniido  (Vaiin«»s  ot  do  munitions,  ^'lAce  A  mi  coutrole  rijionroux  et  aiix 
iionibitMix  s(''(|iu'.stn's  <riirnu'.s  qn\ni  soiiix-onnait  T-tro  dcstiiucis  A  Tex. 
iMntiition,  itai«!<»  (|nVllo.s  sc!  tnmvaiciit  tout  pri's  do  hi  fronticrt' et  (iiic, 
poiii-  lit  jtliipart,  riles  portaiciit  dc  faiisscs  drclaratioiis.  D'liii  autre  cote. 
CCS  siMincstics  out  domir  lien  a  (|n('l(|iu's  ivcilainations;  on  los  repiesentait 
i'oniiiic  dt's  attt'inti's  portc'cs  a  la  liUcrte  d'indnstrie  {marantic  par  la  ron- 
sritiitioii.  Mais  il  c;  ^  (''vid«Mit  <pi'on  ne  ponvait,  pour  opeicr  scs  saisits, 
attendiv  qne  Ics  aiines  et  les  innnitiotis  enssent  d»^Ja  tVanchi  la  tVonticrc 
on  s'en  tronvass«'nt  si  lappiocliees  (pi'il  fnt  ini|)ossible  d'en  enipeeher  la 
sortie,  snrtont  snr  les  points  de  la  tVontiere  (pii  sont  traverses  par  ini 
eluMnin  de  I'er.  Tontet'ois,  atln  de  ]»onvoir  rei>arer  proinpteinent  tonto 
errenr  event nelle,  les  [)crsonnes  interessees  ont  tonjonrs  en  le  droit  dc 
jiresente'r  de  suite  lenr  reclamation;  mais  on  a  pu  pres<pui  clnupu's  tois 
constater  (pi'on  avait  bien  li  t'aire  a  <l8S  tentatives  de  (iontrebande  et  ipic 
nndgre  toute  la  vi<jfilance  desirable  il  etait  impossible  d'empecUer  toutes 

les  exportat ions  defendues.  .  .  . 
[.500]  *  La  <!oopcratiou  dn  departement  du  commerce  et  des  peajjes  pom 
l'ex(''('ntion  de  I'ordonnance  du  eonseil  federal  concernant  la  neii- 
tralit*'  de  la  tSnisse,  en  date  dn  KJJnillet  1870,  s'est  bornee  en  n'alite  a 
rinterdiction  du  commerce  d'armes  et  de  materiel  de  ;;'ierre.  Les  mv 
sures  prises  pour  snrveiller  I'exijortation  des  clievaux,  en  execution  de 
lehhation  de  la  taxe  d'exportation  decretee  par  le  eonseil  federal,  avait  eii 
plut«'»t  trait  aux  i)rei)aratifs  militaires  de  la  confederation  <pi'un  nn  intieii 
de  la  position  ncntre  de  la  Suisse  entre  les  deux  puissances  bellij^erantes. 

Dans  son  rapport  dull  novembre,  le  dei)artement  avait  presente  an 
eonseil  lederal  un  tableau  somnniire  des  saisies  d'armes  et  do  ma- 
teriel de  jiuerre  executees  ])ar  I'admiuistration  des  pea{?es. 

Le  tableau  ci-Joint  renferme  la  liste  de  toutes  les  saisies  de  ce  genre 
o|)erees  depuis  la  decision  du  eonseil  federal  du  10  juillet  jusquVi  la 
levee  de  cette  mesure,  en  date  du  3  nmrs  dernier.  Le  resultat  prouve 
(pie  le  personnel  de  radministration  des  i)eages  s'est  acquitte  avec  ac 
tiviteet  perseverancedecetteta(;lieinj;rate,et  qu'en  g6neral  ilaetc 
[501]  fait  sous  ce  rajjport  tout  ee  qu'il  etait  possible  d'obtenir  en  *egar(l 
aux  grandes  ditlicnltes  auxquelles  faisait  dejil  allusiou  le  rap 
port  du  ddpartement  en  date  du  11  novembre  1870 

Berne,  le  28jninl871. 

Au  nom  du  eonseil  federal  Suisse. 

Le  Prhidcni  dela  Confederation,    SCTIENK. 
Le  Chancclier  de  la  Confederation,  SUHIESS. 


ties,  a"ees 


i 

'it- 


No.  7.— ORDONNANCi:    CONCKRNANT    LK  MAINTIEX    DE   LA   NEUTRALITf: 
DE  LA  SUISSE,  (DU  16  JUILLET  1870.) 

Le  eonseil  federal  Suisse,  voulant  prevenir  tous  les  actes  uon-compati- 
bles  avec  la  position  neiitre  de  la  Suisse,  se  fondant  siir  I'article  i)0, 
cliiftre  9,  de  la  constitution  federale,  a  cirrete  les  dispositions  suivantes, 
qui  sont  publiees  par  la  presente,  pour  que  chacun  ait  a  s'y  eonformer : 

Art.  Ier.  Les  troupes  regulieres,  aiusi  que  les  voloataires  des  etats 
belligerants,  qui  tenteraieut  de  penetrer  dans  le  territoire  de  la  con- 
federation on  de  le  traverser  en  corps  ou  isol^ment,  serout  en  cas  de 

besoin  repousses  par  la  force. 
[502]        *Art.  2.  L'exportation  d'armes  et  de  materiel  de  guerre  eii 
general  dans  les  etats  voisins  belligerants  est  interdite,  aiiisi  qne 
tout  rassemblemeut  d'objets  de  cette  nature  dans  la  proximity  des  frou 
tieres  respectives. 


•Suisse,  est  a 


COUNTyR    CASE    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES. 


109 


Km  i'i».s(le  contra  veil  tion,los  iiiiiifliaiwlisossorontinisoHsous  sr-ipicstre. 

Akt.  ''5.  Lcs  arinos  et  1«*  inatrricl  dc  yiuTiv  (|ui  stToiit  ai»p()it«'i»s  «h's 
("tats  l)«'lli{>('iant8  sur  territoire  suissc  par  dcs  r(''lii;>i«''s  ou  dcserteiirs, 
oil  dc  toutc  autre  iiiaiiirro,  soront  paroillt'iiuMit  siMpu'stivs. 

Akt.  I.  II  est  iiitcrdit  (I'acilu'tor  ou  en  p'lu'ial  «U!  i)rt'ii(lre  jxisspssioii 
(rariiics, do  iiiat<'Mic'l dc  jjiicrro  otd'objcts  (iVMpiipciiit'nt  appoitt'-s  par  dcs 
(It'siMtt'iirs  jiardt'lA  la tiontit'iv, etlcsobjetsdo  ectto  nature  sennit  saisis 
lois  ineiiie  qu'ils  .seraieiit  trouves  entre  lea  mains  de  tienu's  personiies. 

Akt.  5.  Les  r«''tngies  ou  d«'!serteurs  arrivant  sur  teriitoire  Suisse 
siM'oiit  iuternus  a  une  distance  conveiiable.  Pour  le  eas  «)u  leur  iiombre 
sorait  considerable,  il  en  sera  iininediatement  donnc  connaissance  an 
(Oiiscil  federal,  (pii  avisera  aux  inesares  necessaires. 

Soiit  except«''s  les  feinnies,  les  enfants,  les  malades  ot  les  personnes 
ties,  ajiees  et  (idles  dont  on  a  des  motifs  snflisants  d'admcttre  (pi'elles 

se  comporteront  traiHjuillement. 
'){)'•]]       *Ijes  refugii's  ou  deserteurs  qui  ne  se  soumettront  i)a8  aux 
ordres  des  autorites,  ou  donneront  d'ailleurs  matiere  j\  des  reclaina- 
rioiis,  seront  imniediatement  renvoyes. 

Akt.  (».  Lit  passage  de  gens  ajites  an  port  d'armes  par  lo  territoirn 
Suisse  pour  se  rendre  du  territoire  de  I'line  des  puissances  belligcrantes 
sur  cclui  de  Tantre  est  interdit.  Les  individus  decette  (!at<''gorie  seront 
'uvoyes  dans  I'interieur  de  la  Suisse,  X  nioiiis  qu'ils  ne  preterent  retour- 
lu'r  sur  leurs  pas. 

Akt.  7.  Les  gouvoniements  des  cantons  frontieres,  ainsi  que  les 
coniinandants  militaires  en  lonction,  sont  charge's  de  I'execution  de  la 
l»rt''sciit(^  oidoniiance;  le  departement  di  coininerce  et  des  p«'^;iges  est 
charge  de  I'execution  en  ce  qui  concerne  la  circulation  interdite  d'arines 
ft  (le  materiel  de  guerre  a  la  t'rontiere. 

licrne,  le  lOjuillet  1870. 

Au  iioux  du  couseil  federal  Suisse. 

Lo  Frcmlcnt  fie  la  Confedrratinn,  T)''.  J.  DUBS. 
Le  Chaneclier  de  la  Coujederation,  SCHIESS. 


■.;jr 


'ii^ 


« ^  f 


'I? 


[51)4]  "No.  8.-MEvSSA0E   DU  CONSEIL  Fl';DfiRAL  A  LA  HAUTE  ASSEMBI-^.E 
Vf.Df)llXLi:    CON'CEKNANT     LE    MALNTIEN     J)E     LA    NElJ'l'UALITfi 
SUISSE   I'EN'DANT  LA   GUEKUE  ENTRE    LA  FRANCE   ET   L'ALLEMACiNE, 
(DU  8  DEcEMBRE  1870.) 

[Extraits.] 

Monsieur  le  Prt^sident  et  Messieurs:  L'artide  G  de  I'arrct^'i 
fi'deral  du  10  juillet  dernier,  relatif  au  maiutien  de  la  neutralite  de  la 
Suisse,  est  aiusi  con^u : 

Le  ooiiseil  ft^ddral  rendra  compte  a  I'asseuiblde  ft5(I6ralc,  dans  sa  proeliaino  rduiiioii, 
tie  I'usage  qu'il  aura  fait  des  pluius  poavoirs  qui  lui  sout  coulcids  par  lo  prdaent 
arrets. 

Le  conseil  feddral  a  Phonneur  de  s'acquitter  de  ce  mandat  en  vous 
souiuettant  le  present  rapport,  et,  des  I'abord,  il  constate  avec  i>laisir 
•lue  jusqu'ii  present  la  iieutralitd  Suisse  n'u  point  et«5  mise  en  question 
par  les  6tats  belligerants. 

Les  mesures  Jl  i)rendre  en  vue  du  maiutien  de  notre  neutralite  ont  fort 
occupe  le  conseil  federal  et  ses  departements.  ISous  mentionnerous  ce» 
luesures  dans  I'ordre  des  departements  qui  en  ont  pris  I'initiative,  mais, 
afiii  de  lier  les  id^es,  nous  recapitulerons  d'abord  brievemeut  les  faits 
anterieurs  ^  I'arret^  federal. 


■':■' 
1     I    * 


•      ^! 

-.  \ 

*   1     4 

t 

>mK' 

^'■^m 

1'' 

r'm 

w . 

i. 

< 

Pll 

-J 

^  m 

>lll 

i^   ■ 

i  i  mB 

U^.    ,. 

umm 

110  TliKATY   OF    WASHINGTON rAPERH   ACCOMPANVIN'O 

l.lU.jJ  Di's  los  ju'omierp  symptoinoa  dn  conHit  cwtro  l.'i  Franco  ot  l;i 
Pi  iissc  Ti  piopoH  tie  lii  caiididatiin'  an  tion»?  d'lCspajfm',  nous  avoiis 
(MI  soiii  (Ic  nods  tcnir  aiitaiit  quo  possible  an  conrant  (I(>  la  situation,  soir 
l>ar  nos  I«'';;ations,  suit  par  d'antrt'S  sonrct's  qno  nons  avions  a  iiotrc 
(lisposition.  Lcs  rapports  qni  nons  parvinrcnt  ni'  retardt'nMit  pas  a  nous 
«MMi\  ainjirc  (pi'il  nVtait  pins  possible  «lo  son^er  li  nno  solntion  paciMque 
dn  dlllt'rcnd,  ot,  dos  le  14  jnillt't,  nonsprinu's  l('sdis|>ositions  ni'dossaircs 
ponr  <|nc  la  Snisao  hi-,  tronvat  i)r«"'to  A  (h't'endre  sa  ntuitralitc)  an  nioniont 
oil  la  {^ntMTc^  oclatorait. 

Nons  avoiis  en  drjiY  I'oceasion  de  fairo  connaitrc  sY  I'assembleo  fV'dorale 
Ics  eontro-dedarations  do  la  Franco  (dn  17  jnillot)  et,  do  I'AUoinagno  dii 
Nord,  (dn  liO  Jnillot,)  ainsi  que  la  notification  provisoire  do  la  nontralitii 
snisso,  dn  15  jnillot,  (t'onillo  fod«''rale  de  1870,  toino  3,  pp.  11,  12  ot  l.'{.) 
Los  gonvornoinonts  de  la  France  et  de  I'Alleinafjne  dn  Nonl,  ainsi  (pie 
cenx  dos  antres  (;tats  bellifforants,  ropondiront  o^alomont  sY  notre 
iiotillcation  dn  18  Jnillot,  en  reconiiaissant  «rnnc  inani«'re  al)solno  la 
nentralito  snisseet  ondonnant  I'assurancoqnVllos  la  rospoctoraiont  ccm- 
scioncionsoinont.  Los  antros  pnissancos  ropondiront  o^ialoinoiit 
[■)(»GJ  s\ notre coininnnicationjos  nnos  on  •annoiicant  sinipleinent<pi'olk's 
on  avaiont  ])ris  acte  ot  los  antros  on  ox|)riinant  do,  pins  la  satis- 
faction avoc  laqiu'llo  olios  avaiont  accnoilli  (rotte  notili<;ation. 

Nons  no  croyons  pas  f'airo  errenr  on  disant  (jno  la  iniso  snr  ])iod  de 
corps  do  tronpos  assoz  considerables  et  la  rapidite  avoc  laqnollo  cos 
tronpes  ont  etc  mobiliseos  out  prodnit  nne  excellonto  impression  snr  los 
donx  parties  belliyorantes,  (pii  ont  pn  acfpiorir  ainsi  lacortitnde(ine  la 
Snisso  avait  la  forme  intention  de  s'opposer  a  tonte  violation  do  sa  nen- 
tralito ot  (proUo  possodait  a  cot  etfet  dos  forces  respo(!tablos,  (\'s 
niesnros  enoif^fiqnes  ont  prodnit  lenr  ettot  snr  losovenemcnts  nlterieurset 
elles  ont  angmento  la  calmo  et  la  contiance  au  dedans 

De  suite,  apros  I'on  vortnre  dos  hostilites  nn  antre  fait  ae  pr«''senta.  Dos 
le  .'{(>  Jnillet  on  nons  infonna  (pi'il  se  faisaitdes  enrdlemcnt.sihxuH  los  can- 
tons de  Vaud  et  do  Geneve  ponr  le  coinpte  do  la  France.  En  cons(;- 
qnence,  nons  adressames,  sons  la  date  dn  1""  aont,  nne  circnlaire  i\ 
tons  les  cantons,  (fonille  fodorale  de  1870,  tome  .'i,  p.  I."}?,)  ponr  lenr 
rappelor  que  cos  enrolements  portoraient  atteinte  a  la  loi  fodorale  du  .'id 
Jnillot  1859,  snr  le  service  militairo  a  rctranger,  (recueil  oHiciol,  0, 
[507]  p.  300,)  et  qu'ils  seraient  de  nature  a  compromettre  la  *neutralitt'' 
de  la  Sui'sse  dans  les  circonstancos  actnelles.  En  consequence 
tons  les  cantons  ctaient  invites  ii  s'opposer  energiquement  il  toute  ten- 
tative de  recrutement. 

I)es  bruits  d'enroloment  de  Suisses  pour  le  service  dr  la  France  nons 
sont  parvenus  encore  sous  uue  autre  forme  durantli^  gucire.  On  aurait 
enrole  desiiuUvidus  ii  fToneve  ponr  nne  lo!>iou  hanovri'iine  et  auxfron- 
tiercs  dos  cantons  do  Berne  et  de  Nenfchatel  pour  h.  c!<rps  de  Garibaldi ; 
mais  «piaud  on  est  arrive  au  fond  des  choses  ces  bruits  ne  se  sont  i)as 
confirmcs.  Nous  ii'en  avons  pas  moins  donne  des  ordres  pour  que  toute 
tentative  do  ce  genre  ffit  reprimee.  Des  mesures  de  police  ont  6t6  prises 
avoc  beaucoup  do  vigueur  coutredes  essaisd'eur61emeut,qui  fureut  faits 
plus  tard  X  Geneve,  mais  qui,  du  reste,  ont  en  peu  de  succes.  Par 
contre,  nous  avons  appris  qu'un  certain  nombre  de  soldats  et  ofiBciers 
suisses  licencies  a  Rome  avaient  repris  du  sorvico  en  France.  En  somme, 
nous  ue  croyons  pas  qu'il  y  ait  eu  Jamais  uue  graudo  guerro  europeeune 
a  laquelle  on  ait  vu  aussi  peu  de  Suisses  prendre  uue  part  active.    .    . 

Par  suite  de  la  proclamation  de  la  r^publique  en  France  il  parut  a 

Neufchritel  un  manifeste  date  du  4  septembre  1870,  et  dont  I'auteur 

[508]    s'adressait  aux  sections  de  I'iuternationale  en  Alle*magne,  en 


COl'NTER   CASK   »»r    THK    I MTKD    STATF..S. 


Ill 


Suisse  et  piirtoiit,  on  iippi'linit  tons  les  N()('ialist<'.s  n  prendre  \va 
liirnH's  poiir  (li'liMMlrc  la  Fraiin*  irpnUlicaiiu'  ('oiitrc  rAllnnauiir  nioiiar- 
Icliiiliii'.  On  (lisait  dansci*  nianil't'stt'  qiMTo  n'etait  plus  nmtri*  ri]Mi|»t'iviir, 
liiiiiis  l)i('ii  rontre  rinilt'-pi'ndanco  ilu  pi'dplc  IVaiir  lis,  ipn-  la  ;;a«-rrf  ttait 
|jliiij;('M';(pH' la.  cause  dc  la  n-piiMiinu^  IVaiiraistM'tail  relic  dt*  la  it- .olutioii 
Ifiiropi'i'iinc;  que,  par  conseipuMit,  lo  moment  t'tait  veiin  »»ii  le-s  m«' nitres 
Liu  I'iiiternationale  devaient  viTser  leur  sany;  pom  reinanei[)ation  d«'  I'on- 
Ivriei  vt  de  riininanite  entii-re.  Les  inemlnes  allemands  etaient  inviU's  a 
Ifoiiibattn'  la  pnissanee  mililaire  prnssienne  avee  leiiis  iViies  <le  Fianee. 
iQiiaiit  anx  njendnv.s  snisses,  lis  tlevaiont  convoqner  des  assemld«-e.s 
Ijiiiiuilain's,  faire  nne  propajjaiule active,  attin'r  a  eux  Ions  les  onviiers, 
|(((ir}iaiiiser,  n'clainer  <les  armes.  etc.  Cet  «''('iit  se  tcrminait  par  ces 
luiots:  Vive  la  reiniblhpie  soeiale  nniverselle  ! 

xVprcs  avoir  pris  connaissance  <le  cc  manifesto,  nous  nous  empres- 
Isiiiiit's  d'inviter,  par  circulaire  tin  10  septemhre  1870,  les  jintoiit«'s  sn- 
Ipi'iicuros  de  police  de  tcnis  les  4'ant<»ns  a  si'ipu'strer  de  snite  tons  les 
iinprimes  rent'ermant  nn  appel  a  nne  participation  active  a  la 
|fr»l)l»]  {guerre  actnelle,  a  empecher  les  lennions  et  tonte  or*jianisati(ni 
arniee  faites  dans  ce  bnt,  et,  eas  j'clieant,  a  or«lonner  les  niesnres 
|(l('itn'cantion  aiiisi  qne  les  encjnetes  m-cessaires,  anx  termes  ties  articles 
li;;  I't  suivants  dn  code  penal  tederal  tin  -7  aont  l.S,~i. 

L'iiistrnction  qne  le  conseil  tl'etat  dn  canton  de  Neiilchatel  onvrit  de 
|(ii)ii  propre  chef  pronva  qne  le  maniteste  dont  il  .s'a;;it  n'avait  ancnne 
|iiii|ioitaiice,  et  <pie  si  nn  certain  noniin**  de  cet  ecrit  avaieiit  <-te  tlistriluies 
Itii  Suisse, on  memeexpedi»'s  a  IVtranj^er,  ils  "'avaient  inoduit  ancnn  etVet. 
Ire  inaiiifeste  avait  m«"'me  provoqne  ties  protestations  inii)liqnes  de  la 
Ijiart  (le  la  population  onvriere  dn  canton  de  Neufcliatel. 

IK'S  tentatives  reiterees  d'envo.ver  en  France  des  armes  et  ties  nniiu- 
tiimsdoiiuerent  lieu  a  de  nombreuses  demarches.  Ce  ne  fut  tpfapres  la 
Icapitulation  de  ISetlan  qne  ces  envois  jn-irent  un  caractere  serienx.  11 
Iva  sans  dire  (pie  nous  n'avons  rien  ne<j;liye  pour  uoiis  opposer  a  ces 
jtciitatives  publi<iuea  on  secretes,  et  nous  avons  tronve  a  cet  etlet  nn 
|a|)i>iii  eiieij;i(pie  dans  les  antoritt'S  et  les  fonetionnaires  des  cantons 
|jiiiisi  que  dans  le  personnel  des  pea<;es. 

Par  nne  circulaire  speciale  dn  -0  septembre,  nous  avons  attire 
|f")10]    sur  ces  faitsTattention  *de  tontes  les  aiitorites  de  i)olice descantons, 
ct  nous  leur  avons  recommande  d'aj^ir  d'un  commnn  at'cord  avec 
Ill's  enqiloyes  des  peay;es  federaiix  i)our  une  surveillance  ellicace   des 
llidutieres. 

La  prenve  que  in^ns  avons  atteint  notre  but  se  trouve  dans  le  nombre 

Icdiisidcrable  de  sequestres  mis  sur  des  armes  et  des  munitions,  i)rinci- 

|l»alt'iiient  dan>s  les  cantons  de  Nenfchatel,  «le  Vaud  et  de  Geneve.     On  a 

Jiourv  n  partont  si  ce  (pie  le  sequestre  soit  maintenu  pendant  toute  la 

|(iiui'e  de  la  guerre  actnelle. 

Quehpies  renseijjnements  relatifs  jY  l'ort>anisation  de  la  contrebande 
|(le  jjuerre  sur  une  vaste  tichelle  dans  la  Suisse  occideiitale  nous  out  en- 
Sa<;e.s  a  envoyer  sur  place  uu  commissaire  special  avec  mission  de  I'eu- 

luerir  du  veritable  etat  des  choses 

Aprt's  avoir  expose  en  detail  les  mesures  qn'il  a  prises  en  vue  de  la 
Idt'teiise  de  la  ueutralite  Suisse,  le  conseil  federal  eroit  devoir  terminer 
le  present  rapport  par  quelques  observations  generales. 

Le  raaiutien  de  la  ueutralite  presen  te  de  graudes  diffieultes,  ne  fut- 
[511]  cedeja  que  parce  qu'on  ue  possede  pas  de  regies  precises  interua- 
tionuies  sur  les  droits  et  les  devoirs  des  neutres.  On  sait,  par  ex- 
ample, qne  I'Angleterre  et  TAmerique  du  Nord*n'ont  misaucuu  empeche- 
lieiita  I'exportation  des  armes  etdes  muuitions destines aux  belligeiauts, 


m 


112 


TRKATY    OF    WASHINGTON PAPERS    ACCOMPANYIXG 


4. "St 


J   : 


taiulis  quo  la  Snisso,  a  troiivo  qii'elle  ne  pouvait  coneilier  cette  exporta 
tion  avec  s;i  maiii«'ro  de  coinpiondre  la  neutialit«''.  IJieii  quo  le  ((iin 
nierce  «les  ariiics  en  Huisse  out  a  soufliVir  dc.  «!ette  appivciation  scvni 
(It's  devoirs  dii  iioiitro,  le  coiiseii  federal  a  cm  devoir  persister  dans  cctti' 
interprefatioii,  parce  que,  d'uiie  part,  elle  est  coiiConne  a  la  lijiiic  (]. 
conduit.'  suivie  dans  des  cas  analogues,  et  que,  d'autre  part,  elle  se  troiivi 
plus  en  harin(uii«5  avec  le  sentiment  i)opulaire. 

La  position  lies  neutres  a  toujours  6tv  difficile.  Le  iieutre  doit  defendiv 
son  droit,  et  tenir  la  balance  ej>ale  entre  deux  a<lversaire.s  irrites  I'm; 
contre  I'autre  juscpfa  vouloir  s'entrc-tuer.  Cette  taclie  excede  presfjin. 
les  tV)rces  luiniaines.  Dei>uis  les  anciens  temps  Jusqu'a  lepoque  actiu'llc 
les  comhattants  ont  cliercbe  a  entrainer  dans  la  lutte  meine  les  dieiixl 
immortels,  et  a  les  attirer  de  leur  cote.  II  n'est  pas  surprenajit  des  !(ii<| 
qu'ils  sV-tlorceiit  de  nu'ttre  dans  leurs  interets  les  etats  neutres,  spect;i 
teurs  de  la  lutte,  et  de  s'assurer  de  ce  qu'on  ai)pelle  lenr  neutraliti 
"bienveiilante,-'  qui,  de  I'autre  cote,  est  taxee  de  neutnilit*'*  "malveill 
ante."  La  uuerre  actuelle  a  montre  um>  Ibis  de  j)lus  <iue  les  neutm 
saus  exception  s'attirent  peu  de  reconnaissance. 

La  neutralit*'  de  la  Suisse  dans  cette  guerre  etait  encore  en 
[■»12J    touiee   de  dillicultcs  toutes  *parti(udieres.      Nos  phis  ])rocliK 

voisias  se  trouvaient  en  guerre  I'un  contre  Tautre;  apresavd:!! 
perdu  son  caractere   dynastiipu',  (;ette  lutte   prit   le  caractere   d'mi. 
guerre  de  ras-es  entre  <leux  peuples  represenlant  justement  lestlciixl 
principalt'.srai'cs  doutla  Suisse  est  composee;  en  outre,  ell«»  parut  revt-tii 
i'apparence  iVm^e  guerre  de  la  republicpie  contre  la  monarcliie,  et  cl^ 
prit  nu"'me  ea  et  la  un  caractere  conlessicnnel.     II  n'est  pas  surprenaiit  I 
que  dans  de  tcllescircoustances  bieu  des  gens  en  Suisse  aient  trouv(''  fjiifj 
leur  pro]ue  ciuise  etait  en  jeu,  que  les  sympathies  se  soient  pr<»noiict*i> 
avec  beancuup  de  vivacite  suivant  le  point  de  vue  anquel  on  se  placiiii. j 
et  que  cliez  nous  les  cris  de  joie  du  vaiiupieur  n'aient  trouve  partbis'tjiii 
de  tres  t'aibles  eclios.     La  Suisse  a  etc  souvent  ex[)osre,  a  ce  propos.  ai 
d'amersreiuoches  d'un  <'bte  comme  de  I'autre.     L'Allemagne  du  Sud  ml 
pouvait  <'OMiprendre  pourquoi  les  Suisses  allemands  n'accueiilaieiit  i»;i> 
avec  une  joie  egale  a  la  sienne  la  deCaite  de  la  France;  et  ClaiihaM: 
s'exprimait  assez  durement  sur  le  fait  que  la  Suisse  ne  portait  pas  secouis 
a  la  nation  Irancaise.    Nous  savons  respecter  ces  sentiments,  niais(ti! I 
doit  aussi  etre  juste  vis:  avis  de  la  Suisse.     La  Suisse  a  fait  de  cruellt-l 

exjit'-rieiu'cs  jusipi'a  ce  qu'elle  se  soit  familiarisee  avec  I'idee  deiit^ 
|5I3J    plus  se  meler  des  querelles  du*dehors;  elle  achoisi  elle-memclnl 

jxtlitique  de  la  ueutralite  longtemjis avant que  rEuroi)eeut  jujici 
propos  de  sanctionner  cette  politique.    Justement  parce  qu'elle  est  p;ii 
tagee  <|uant  aux  races,  aux  religions  et  aux  interets,  elle  ue  pent  intd 
venivactivement  dans  les  guerres  entre  les  autres  etats  san.s  provo<iiiii| 
de  profomles  «iecliirures  dans  son  propre  seiu  et  sans  paralyser  ses  forces.  | 
tandis  tpi'dle  est  forte  dans  la  guerre  defensive,  parce  que  tons  lesi'V 
nients  qui  la  composent  se  reunissent  contre  I'ennemi  du  dt'h  >rs.    Lii 
politique  de  la  ueutralite  n'est  done  point  une  loi  iniposee  a  la  Suisse  jkii 
IV'traiiger;   elle  est  bien  plutot  la  cousequeuce  de  son  organisation 
interieure. 

CVst  pourqiu>i  la  Sui.S!-,e  .1  dans  cette  guerre  manifeste  le  caractw 
particuher  de  sa  nati<uuilite  en  restant  neutre.    Mais  elle  u'a  pas  etc  nii| 
simple  spectateur  oisif  et  curieux  de  cette  grande  lutte;  p;;r  son  inter 
vention  dijiloiuatiipu',  pour  I'adoption  des  articles  additionnels  a  la  cou 
veution  de  (ieneve,  par  I'envoi  d'un  grand  uombre  de  ses  medecins  siii  I 
les  champs  de  Itataille,   par  le  soiu  qu'elle  a  pris  des  blesses  des  deuxj 
uatious  belligerautes  et  par  les  secours  qu'elle  a  donnes  simultan 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES. 


113 


[oU]   ment  aiix  Allemantlsexpiils«''S  et  anx  Strashourgeois,  elle  a  *inoni 
(lu'elle  prenait  iiue  i)art  active  aux  sonftraiices  de  ses  voisins 


"montr*'' 
(liieiie  prenait  iiue  part  active  aux  sonftraiices  de  ses  voisins  et 
tile  a  piouve  <in'elle  savait  remplir  ses  devoirs  d'etat  uentre,  uou-seiile- 
ment  avec  lojaute,  mais  encore  avcc  humanite. 

La  Suisse  ueutre  a  en,  elle  aussi,  sa  mission  dans  cette  guerre. 
II  serait  absurde  de  vouloir  coutester,  au  point  de  vue  de  la  formation  des 
I'tats,  I'importance  du  principe  de  la  uationalit*',  base  sur  la  difterence 
(les  races.  Ce  principe  se  fonde  sur  la  nature  memo,  et  se  trouve,  par  con- 
sequent, justifie.  Mais  11  est  certain,  d'autre  part,  que  les  diverses  races 
ne  doivent  pas  necessairement  vivre  ensemble  dans  uii  etat  d'autago- 
iiisme,  mais  qu'au  coutraire,  en  se  reunissant  dans  la  liberte  elles  se  com- 
plt'tent  les  unes  par  les  autre^,,  et  qu'en  definitive,  au-dessus  de  la  difte- 
rence des  races,  11  y  a  la  commuuaute  de  la  nature  humaine.  Ces  der- 
iiieres  verltes  seront  de  plus  en  plus  generalement  reconnues  j\  mesure 
que  la  civilisation  fera  des  pas  en  avant.  En  attendant,  la  Suisse,  dont 
cette  union  des  races  est  le  caractere  essentiel,  a  le  devoir  de  veiller  au 
maiutien  de  son  principe  et  de  le  faire  prevaloir  d'une  maniere  digne 
ail  milieu  des  guerres  de  races ;  partout  on  elle  le  pent,  elle  doit  s'efibrcer 
de  frayer  la  route  i\  des  appreciations  plus  humaines  sur  le 
[515,  51G]  terrain  du  droit  des  gens.  C'est  dans  ce  sens  que  le  eonseil  ♦fe- 
deral a  compris  la  mission  que  la  Suisse  avait  'X  remplir,  et 
[c'est  a  ce  point  de  vue  qu'il  desire  voir  juger  ses  actes. 

Le  eonseil  federal  espere  que  la  Suisse  pourra  maintenir  intacte  sa 
Iposition  jusqu'ii  la  flnde  cette  guerre  terrible;  et  ^n  exprimant  a  I'as- 
seniblee  federale  sa  gratitude  pour  laconfiane3  qn'elle  lui  a  accordce 
lorsqu'elle  lui  a  confere  des  pouvoirs  extraordinaires,  le  couseil  federal 
saisit  cette  occasion,  monsieur  le  president  et  messieurs,  pour  vous  re- 
luoiiveler  I'assurance  de  sa  baute  consideration. 
Berne,  le  l*""^  decembre  1870. 
Au  uom  du  eonseil  federal  Suisse. 

Le  President  de  la  Confederation,  Dr.  J.  DUBS. 
Le  Chancelier  de  la  Confederation,  iHJUlESS. 
8  A— II 


^J  'f 


HHJ 

■11 

■ 

,-.  :y  '■■■  *'(  ^';f;  ■ 

1 

^KLk^h^^ 

^^^^I^K'' 

■| 

^^ft". 

m 

^^^v 

pp»?w 

^^^^^^^^ 

m 

m 

'^^H 

Mk^iA 

ii^n 

w 


rSM  ; 


i'i>j 


;517, 518]    j 

LAWS  AN 
THAI 


'  'U 


517,518]    ADDITIONAL  MEMORANDA  TOUCHING  NEUTRALITY 
LAWS  AND  THE  EXECUTION  THEREOF  IN  COUNTRIES  OTHER 
THAN  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN. 


wm 


'Am 


•.■iioj 

Xo.  1.  Ortl 
So.  2.  Cir< 
Xo.  3.  Let 
Xo.  4.  !Not 
No.  5.  Ger 
So.  6.  Ext 
No.  7.  Lav 

Nu.  l.-ORDO: 
OBLIGATIO: 
TEMPS  DE  ( 

Xo'is,  Chr< 

[.J20]  Quo 
de  nie 
d'antres  puij 
ordoniiauces 
eircoustaucci 
(le  CCS  reglem 
servir  de  rec 
ilonnee  aux  j 
teuir  en  tou 
I'tat.s,  et  que 
luent  aux  de 
seiublable.  ] 
suivaut  soit  < 
leur  conduitt 
que  la  iieuti 
raeree  et  s\  la 
l)ar  la  preset 
(le  iios  dits  s 
nous  et  publ 

AiiT.  1.  Qi 
faire  ] 
[j-'l]  place  I 
d'autr 
procurer  un 
pour  Texped 
iivertis,  au  co 
strangers  on 
notre  passep 

AiiT.  2.  Ci 
seau  qu'apr< 

Art.  3.  F 
i'aut  etre  not 
inencement 
I'Europe,  la  j 
lie  uos  pays, 


•.-ilDj 


•VII.— D  E  N  M  A  11  K. 


Xo.  1.  Oraiuaiice  of  May  4,  ls03. 

Xo.  2.  Circular,  May  I'O',  182:3. 

Xo.  3.  Letter,  April  20,  ISTA. 

No.  4.  isotice,  July  2.5, 1870. 

No.  5.  General  instmction.s. 

No.  6.  Extracts  from  jtenal  co<le. 

No.  7.  Law  of  registratiou,  1807. 

Vu,  l.-ORDOyXAXCE  DU  ROT.  POl'R  RflGLER  LA  COXDUITE  ET  FIXER  LES 
OBLIGATIONS  DES  COMMERCAXT8  KT  GENS  DE  MER  DE  SES  ETATS  EN 
TEMFS  DE  GUERRE  ENTRE  D'aLTRES  PUISSANCES  MARITIMES,  (LE  4  MAI 

bU3.) 

No'ls,  Chretien  Sept,  par  la  grace  de  Dieu  Roi  de  Danneniarc  &  de 
Nor^  egii'»,  &c.,  &c.j  a  tous  ceux  qu'il  appartiendra  : 

;.j20]  Quoique  les  regies  d'apres  lesqnelles  les  coramer*(;ants  et  gens 
de  nier,  nos  snjets,  d'uveut  se  conduire  en  temps  de  guerre  entrc 
d'antres  puissances  maritinies,  soient  determindes  par  plusieurs  de  nos 
ortlonnances  anterieures,  nou-s  avons  neaumoins  juge  necessaire,dans  les 
eircoustauces  actuelles,  d'exposer  dans  une  seule  ordonnance  le  contenu 
(leces  reglements,  raodifie  a  plusieurs  egards,  et  tel  qu'il  devra  dorenavant 
sorvir  de  regie,  atiu  que  par  la  pn-sente  la  plus  grande  publicite  soit 
(lonnee  aux  principes  invariables,  d'apres  lesquels  nous  entendons  main- 
teiiir  en  tout  temps  les  droits  des  coramer^antt:  et  gens  de  mer  de  nos 
•  tats,  et  que  personne  ne  puisse  pretendre  causo  d'ignorance  relative- 
iiient  aux  devoirs  qu'il  aura  a  remplir  coramc  sujei  danois  dans  un  cas 
seiublable.  En  consequence,  c'est  notre  voloute  royale  que  le  reglement 
siiivaut  soit  dorenavant  ponctuellement  observe  comme  la  seule  regie  de 
Icur  conduite  par  toas  ceux  qui  voudront  prendre  part  aux  avautages- 
Hiie  la  neutralite  de  notre  pavilion,  en  temps  de  guerre,  assure  au  com- 
merce et  j\  la  navigation  b^gitime  de  nos  sujets ;  ii  ces  causes,  revoquant 
par  la  presente  nos  ordonnances  anterieures  relativeraent  a  la  conduite 
(le  nos  dits  sujets  pendant  une  guerre  maritime  etrangere,  nous  ordou- 
iious  et  publious  ce  qui  suit : 

Art.  ].  Quiconque des commercants  on  gensde  merde nos  etats voudra 

taire  partir  un  vaissean  a  lui  appartenant,  pour  quelque  port  ou 

Jiil]    place  etranger,  snr  laquelle  rettet  d'une  *guerre  survenue  entro 

d'antres  puissances  maritinies  pourra  s'eteudre,  sera  tenu  de  se 

procurer  un  i)asseport  royal  en  latin,  et  les  autres  papiers  et  actes  requis 

pour  Texpedition  legitime  d'un  navire.    A  cette  tin  nos  sujets  seront 

avortis,  au  commencement  d'une  i»areille  guerre,  pour  quels  ports  ou  places 

t  trangers  on  aiu-a  juge  necessaire  que  leurs  navires  soient  pourvus  de 

notre  passeport  royal  en  latin. 

Art.  2.  Ce  passeport  ne  pourra  etre  delivre  au  propri(?taire  du  vais- 
seau  qu'apres  qu'il  aura  obtenn  le  certiticat  qui  constate  sa  propriete. 

Art.  3.  Pour  obtenir  le  certiticat  ordonue  par  Particle  precedent,  il 
taut  ttre  notre  snjet,  ne  dans  nos  etats,  ou  avoir  aquis,  avant  le  com- 
inencement  des  bostilite.s  entre  quelques  puissances  niaritimes  de 
IKurope,  la  jouissance  complete  de  tous  les  droits  de  sujet  domicilie,  soit 
lie  uos  pays,  soit  de  qnelqu'aotre  etat  neutre.    Le  proprietaire  du  navire 


i 


."•"•'I  f 


■Ji 


r 


TT 


118 


rUKATV    OF    WASHINGTON I'APER.S    ACCOMPANYING 


0 


I  ■■' 


■I.  ♦4' 


!•    ii 


i\ 


fi 


pour  lo«inel  o,i  tlcmamle  le  certificat  devia,  dans  tons  les  cas,  ivsidt; 
duiisqiiolqiie  endroitde  nos  loyaiunes  on  dcs  pays  a  nous appaitenaut>. 

AiiT.  4.  11  landia,  pour  se  ]>rocuror  le  ccrtilicat  ci-dessus  eiiontM-,  .u- 
presenter  ])ardevant  le  magistrat  de  la  vdio  on  jdaco  maritime  d'oii  lor; 
expedie  le  navire,  ou  bien  dii  lieu  de  la  residence  de  la  pluparr 
[522J  des  proprietaires  ;  *ceux-ei  seront  tenus  de  certifier  ou  tons  per 
sonnellement,  soit  par  sermeut  de  vive-voi\,  soit  par  formule  de 
serinent  ecrite  et  signee  de  leur  propre  main,  ou  du  moius  le  proprii 
taire  i)rinci])al  au  noni  de  tons,  que  le  navire  est  vraiment  a  eux,  ton> 
ensemble  nos  snjets,  appartenant,  &  qu'il  n'a  A  son  bord  aucune  con 
trebande  de  guerre  qui  soit  pour  le  eompte  des  puissances  belligi 
rantes  ou  pour  celui  de  leurs  snjets. 

Art.  5.  J)urant  le  cours  d'une  guerre  maritime  etrangere  personne 
nee  sujet  d'une  des  puissances  qui  s'y  trouvent  impliquees  ne  poum 
etre  capitaine  d'un  batiment  marchand  naviguant  sous  notre  passepon 
royal,  ii  moins  qu'il  u'ait  justitie  d'avoir  acquis  le  droit  de  burgeoisie 
dans  nos  royaumes  ou  pays,  avant  le  commencement  des  hostilites. 

Art.  G.  Tout  capitaine  marchand  qui  veut  etre  admis  a  conduire  un 
navire  muni  de  notre  passeport  roytil  doit  avoir  acquis  le  droit  de  boiir 
geoisie  quelque  i>art  dans  nos  etats.  Sa  lettre  de  bourgeoisie  devra  «'tri 
en  tout  temps  u  bord  de  son  navire.  Avant  son  d«'part  du  port  oii  It 
passeport  lui  aura  ete  remis,  il  sera  tenu  de  i)reter  sermeut,  suivant  la 
formule  i)rescrite,  quVi  son  su  &  de  sa  voloute  il  ne  sera  rien  commis  ou 
entrepris  relativement  au  dit  navire  qui  puisse  entrainer  quelque 
[523J  abus  des  passeports  et  certificats  qui  lui  out  ete  delivres.  *L*actf 
de  sermeut  sera  euvoyeau  departemeut,  competent,  avec  la  requite 
pour  la  delivrance  des  passeports.  Mais  en  cas  que  cela  ne  puisst 
deft'ectuer  par  raisou  s 'absence  du  capitaine,  le  proprietaire  du  navire 
sera  tenu  d'en  douner  connaissance  au  dit  departement,  &  notre  consul 
ou  commissaire  de  commeice  dans  le  district  ou  le  capitaine  se  troiive 
pourvoira  sous  sa  responsabilite  a  ce  qu'en  recevaut  le  passeport  il  prite 
le  sermeni  ordonne. 

Art.  7.  II  ne  doit  se  trouver  a  bord  des  navires  munis  du  passeport 
ci-dessus  ordonne  aucun  subrecargue,  facteur,  commis  ni  autre  oflBcier 
de  navire  sujet  d'une  puissance  en  guerr  , 

Art.  8.  La  moitie  de  I'equipage  des  navires  ci-dessus  specifies,  y  com 
iiri^  les  maitres  &  contre-maitres,  sera  compose  de  gens  du  pays.  S'il 
uii'  ve  que  I'equipage  d'un  navire  devieune  incomplet  en  pays  etranger 
par  desertion,  mort  ou  maladie,  &  que  le  capitaine  soit  dans  Fimpossi 
bilite  de  se  conformer  ii  la  regie  susdite,  il  lui  sera  permis  d'engager  an- 
tant  de  sujets  etrangers,  &  de  preference  ceux  des  pays  neutres,  qu'il  eu 
aura  besoin  pour  continuer  son  voyage ;  de  maniere,  cepeudant,  que  le 
nombre  des  sujets  d'une  puissance  en  guerre  qui  se  trouveront  ii  bord 
du  navire  u'exeede  en  aucun  cas  le  tiers  du  nombre  entier  de 
[o24J  I'equipage.  Cliaque  cbangement  *qui  y  aura  lieu,  le  capitaine 
sera  obligd  de  le  faire  inserer,  avec  explication  des  causes  qui 
I'ont  rendu  necessaire,  dans  le  role  (I'equipage  appartenant  au  navire, 
lequel  role  sera  diiment  atteste  par  le  consul  ou  commissaire  de  com 
merce,  ou  sou  d«'degue,  dans  le  premier  port  oil  le  navire  entrera,  pour 
que  cette  attestation  puisse  servir  de  legitimation  au  capitaine  partout 
oil  besoin  sera. 

Art.  9.  Les  actes  et  documents  ci-apres  si»ecifles  devront  toujours 
etre  a  bord  des  navires  pourvus  de  notre  passeport  royal,  savoir  : 

Jje  certificat  ordonne  par  I'article  2 ; 

La  lettre  de  constriction,  &,  si  le  navire  n'a  pas  ete  construit  pour 
eompte  du  proprietaire  actuel,  il  y  sera  joint  le  coutrat  de  veute  ou  let- 


C'OINTKK   CASE    OF    TIIK    IMTEP    STATES. 


Ill 


n 


neiracliat.     Le  premier  do  cea  deux  actes  et  le  second,  s'il  u  eii  lieu, 
accouipaguerout  la  reijuete  do  IVriniiteur  ])Our  obtenir  le  piisseport; 

Le  passeport  royal  en  latiu,  avec  les  traductions  y  ap[)artenante.s; 

La  lettre  de  jaugeage  ; 

Le  role  d'equipage,  duinent  verilie  par  les  oflieiers  a  ce  conipetents ; 
.  Les  charteparties  »S:  les  connaisseniens  concernant  la  cargaison  :  v\: 
.ntiii  Tattestation  du  bureau  de  douane  etabli  sur  les  lieux  oii  elle  a  ett' 

prise. 
.',L»j]  Art.  10.  La  lettre  de  Jaugeage  sera  exprdire  par  des  *ofticier.s  a 
ce  constitues  dans  les  i)laces  niaritinies  <le  nos  royaumes  et  pays. 
l]u  cas  qu'uu  de  nos  sujets  ait  acliete  un  navire  en  quehpie  port  etran- 
:;i'r,  notre  consul  ou  commissairede  commerce  sur  le  lieu  sera  autorise  a 
jioiuvoir  au  jaugeage  &  a  expedier  an  capitaine  une  lettre  de  .jaugeage 
provisoire,  lacpielle  sera  reputee  valable  Jusqu'a  ce  que  le  uavire  arrive 
.1  quelque  port  de  nos  etats,  ou  il  sera  jauge  et  marque  en  due  forme, 
nprcs  qnoi  il  sera  expedie,  dans  la  forme  ordinaire,  une  lettre  de  jaugeage, 
ijiii  par  la  suite  fera  partie  des  papiers  de  mer  appartenant  au  navire. 

Akt.  11.  11  est  defendu  A  tout  armatenrd'acqu<''rir,  et  a  tout  capitaine 
d'avoir  a  son  bord,  des  pai)iers  de  mer  doubles  ;  il  n'y  sera  point  arbore 
(le  pavilion  T'tranger  pendant  que  le  navire  poursuivra  son  voyage  avec 
k'S  papiers  «&  actes  par  nous  accordes  a  cet  ettet. 

Art.  12.  Xotro  passeport  royal  u'est  valable  que  pour  un  seul  voy- 
a;(e— c'est-adire,  depuis  le  temps  que  le  navire,  apres  en  avoir  etc  pour- 
vu,  aura  quitte  le  port  d'oii  il  est  expedie,  jusquVi  sou  retour  au  jueme  port ; 
Itien  entendu  que  dans  I'iutervalle  il  n'aura  pas  change  de  propri«'?taire ; 
auqnel  cas  I'acquereur  sera  tenu  de  se  procurer  sous  son  nom  les  papiers 

et  documents  u«'cessaires. 
.'»2G]  *Art.  13.  Comme  d'apres  les  principes  gen«''ralement  etablis,  il 
ne  sau'.ait  etre  permis  aux  sujets  d'une  puissance  neutre  de 
irausporter,  par  le  moyen  de  leurs  navires,  des  marcliandises  (]ui  se- 
raieut  reputes  contrebande  de  guerre,  si  elles  etaieut  destint'cs  pour  les 
jtorts  d'une  puissance  belligerante  ou  qu'elles  appartinsseut  a  3es  su- 
jets, nous  avons  juge  convenable  de  fixer  express<'*ment  ce  qui  devra 
I'tre  coMipris  sous  la  denomination  de  contrebande  de  guerre,  afiu  de 
lirevenir  qu'il  ue  soit  abuse  de  notre  pavilion  pour  couvrir  le  transport 
lies  articles  defendus,  &  pour  que  persoune  ne  puisse  alleguer  cause 
in^norauce  a  ce  sujet.  Nous  declarons,  en  consequence,  que  les  ar- 
ticles &  marcliandises  ci-apies  enouces  seront  reputes  etre  contrebande 
»le  guerre,  vis :  canons,  mortiers,  armes  de  toute  espece,  pistolets,  bombes, 
jrrenades,  boulets,  balles,  fusils,  pierres  a  feu,  mcclies,  poudre,  salpetre, 
soufre,  cuirasses,  piques,  epees,  ceiuturous,  giberues,  selles  et  brides,  eu 
exceptant  toutefois  la  <iuantite  qui  pent  etre  necessaire  pour  la  defense 
(lu  vaisseau  et  de  ceux  qui  en  composeut  I'equipage. 

En  oatre,  resti.ont  eu  pleine  vigueur  les  engagements  positifs  con- 
tractes  avec  les  puissances  etraugeres,  relativemeut  aux  marcbandises 
&  proprietes  dont  ces  engagements  probibent  le  transport  eu  temps  de 
guerre ;  &  sera  pour  cet  ettet  dresse  un  reglement  particular,  pour  etre 
delivre  a  chaque  arraateur  quand  11  recevra  notre  passeport  royal. 
•5l'7J  *  Art.  14.  En  cas  qu'uu  vaisseau  destine  pourquelque  port  neutre 
prennesa  cargaison  des  marcliandises  qui  seraient  contrebande  de 
j.'nerre  si  elles  etaient  destinees  pour  un  port  appartenant  il  quelque  puis- 
sance belligerante,  il  ne  suflflra  pas  que  le  proprietaire  et  le  capitaine  ajant 
l>rt'te  le  sermeut  ordoune  ci-dessus,  mais  I'affreteur  &  le  capitaine  seront 
•le  plus  obliges  de  douner  conjointement  une  declaration  differeute  de 
la  declaration  generale  de  douane,  dans  laquelle  seront  si^eciflesle  genre, 
la  quantitf^  et  le  prix  de  ces  marcliandises.    Cette  declaration  sera  veri- 


K^;?'- 


V'.,  ■ 


^t\:    ■ 

-      i,[ 

m  ■! . 

'a'.    ■ 

■■•  j^ 

»  ..■ 

i§ 

is. 

/  pM 

wmw 


120 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON PAPER8    ArCOMPANYING 


M»»« 


IH 


^6e  par  les  officiers  de  douane  si  rendroit  d'ou  le  naviro  est  expcHlic, 
aprc'S  (luoi  I'officier  de  douane  a  cc  competent  la  fera  incessainment  par. 
venir  sY  noire  chanibre  generale  des  douanes,  ponr  servir  a  coutroler  vV 
a  constater  I'arrivee  des  niarcliandises  y  speciH(^*ea,  an  lieu  de  leur  des 
tinatiou  y  enonce,  li  moins  que  I'arrivee  u'en  ait  ete  empechee  par  cap. 
ture  ou  detention  violente,  ou  par  qtielque  autre  acculent,  de  quoi  il  seni 
fourni  preuve  suflisante.  Lo  controle  s'eft'ectuera  de  la  manierf.  qui 
suit:  Le  freteur  de  ces  marchandises  devra  fournir  une  attestation 
par  ecrit  de  notre  consul  ou  commissaire  de  commerce,  ou  de  leur 
fonder  des  pouvoirs  au  lieu  [>our  lequel  le  navire  est  destine,  on. 
i\  leur  defaut,  du  magistrat  competent  ou  de  (luelque  autre  personne 
publiquement  autorisee  et  qualitiee  pour  cet  acte;  laquelle  attes 
tatioji  certiftera  I'arrivee  du  vaisseau  et  le  decliargement  des 
[528J  marchandises  conformement  A  la  declaration  8U8-mention<je  &  *en 
sera  la  preuve  legale.  Cette  attestation  sera  envoyde  a  notre 
college  general  d'economie  de  commerce  aussitot  que  le  vaisseau 
sera  arrive  au  port  pour  lequel  il  est  destine,  ou  bieu  apres  son 
retour  dans  lui  des  ports  de  nos  royaumes.  En  cas  que  cette  attes 
tation  ne  soit  pas  remise  dans  un  delai  proportionne  a  la  longueur  dn 
voyage,  notre  college  g«''neral  d'economie  et  de  commerce  exigera  iln 
freteur  du  navire  une  declaration,  telle  qu'il  consentirait  X  I'aflirmer  par 
serment,  portant  qu'il  n'a  re«;u  aueune  nouvelle,  ni  du  navire  ni  de  ces 
marchandises.  Si  I'arrivee  du  navire  et  le  decliargement  des  marcliau 
discs  ci-dessus  speciftees  dans  un  port  neutre  ne  peuvent  etre  prouvos. 
et  qu'une  prise  en  mer  ou  quelqu'autre  evenement  malheureux  u'en  soit 
pas  la  cause,  le  freteur  payera  a  la  caisse  de  notre  college  general 
d'economie  et  de  commerce  une  amende  de  vingt  rixdales  pour  chaquc 
last  de  commerce  que  porte  le  navire ;  et  seront  en  outre  autant  Fai- 
mateur  que  le  capitaine  soumis  a  Taction  tlscale  conformement  aux  lois. 
Art.  15.  11  est  defendu  a  tons  capitaines  de  navires  de  faire  voile 
pour  un  port  bloqu«;  du  cote  de  la  mer  par  une  des  puissances  en  guerre: 
au  contraire,  ils  devront  se  confornier  strictement  aux  renseiguemeiits 
qui  leur  auront  etc  donnes  par  les  niagistrats  competents  relative- 
[529]  ment  au  blocus  de  ce  port.  En  cas  qu'un  capitaine,  *voulaiit 
entrer  dans  un  port  dont  le  blocus  ne  lui  aurait  point  ete  coniin, 
rencontre  quelque  vaisseau  de  haut  bord,  portant  pavilion  de  quelqiie 
puissance  en  guerre,  dont  le  commandant  I'avertisse  que  ce  port  est 
reellement  bloqne,  il  sera  oblige  de  se  retirer  incessament,  et  ne  tentera 
en  aueune  maniere  d'y  entrer,  taut  que  le  blocus  n'en  sera  pas  leve. 

Art.  1G.  II  ne  sera  permis  a  aucun  de  nos  sujets  de  s'engager  au 
service  de  quelque  corsaire  ou  armateur  en  course  d'un  pays  en  guerre. 
ni  d'armer  lui-meme  des  batiments  ponr  ]>areille  entreprise,  ni  d'avoir 
part  ou  interet  dans  ce  genre  d'equipement.  Aucun  armateur,  auciiu 
capitaine,  ne  doit  permettre  qu'il  soit  fait  usage  de  son  navire  pour 
transporter  des  troupes  ou  munitions  de  guerre,  de  quelle  espece  que 
ce  puissc  etre.  Au  cas  qu'un  capitaine  ne  puisse  empecher  que,  pour 
pareil  service,  il  soit  abuse  de  son  navire  par  une  force  irresistible  il 
sera  tenu  de  protester,  d'une  maniere  solennelle  et  par  acte  authentique, 
centre  la  violence  qu'il  n'a  pas  ete  en  son  pouvoir  d'eviter. 
Art.  17.  Lors<iu'un  vaisseau,  non  convoye  par  une  protection  iiiili 
taire,  sera  hele  en  mer  pfir  (luehpie  batiment  arme  appartenan^ 
[530]  a  uno  des  puissances  belligerantes,  *et  (pii  serait  autorise  a  de- 
ma?  ier  I'inspection  des  papiers  de  mer  a  bord  des  vaisseaux 
marchandc,,  le  capitaine  n'opposera  aueune  resistance  a  cet  examen,  si 
le  commandant  du  batiment  arme  auuonce  I'intention  de  le  faire  ;  uiais 
il  sera,  au  contraire,  oblige  d'exhiber  fidelement,  et  sans  dissimulation 


COrXTER    CASE    OF   THE    T'NITED    STATES. 


121 


qiielcoiKiue,  tons  les  papiers  et  aetcs  appartenaiit.s  tant  au  uavire  qu'a 

II  est  paroillemont  defeiKln,  sous  ties  peinca  st'vores,  tant  au  capitaine 
(111  navire  qu'ii  ses  ofliciers  et  equipage,  de  jeter  i\  la  uier,  dechirer  ou 
retenir  aucun  des  documents  faisant  partie  des  papiers  relatifs  au 
navire  et  a  la  cargaison,  soit  avautla  visite,  soit  pendant  qu'elle  so  fera. 
Dans  le  cas  que  nous  auiions  accorde  au  commerce  une  protection 
ariiK^'C  sous  notre  pavilion,  alors  les  capitaines  marchands  qui  desireront 
d'etre  rectus  sous  convoi  seront  tenus  prealablement  d'exhiber  leurs 
napiers  de  mer  au  cbef  du  convoi,  et  de  se  regler  en  tout  d'apri's  ses 
ordres. 

Art.  18.  Tout  arraateurou  capitaine  qui  contreviendra,  en  tout  ou  en 
])artie,  aux  articles  et  regies  de  cette  ordonnance,  sera  decbu  de  son  droit 
(le  bourgeoisie  et  de  commerce  maritime,  et  en  outre  soumis  ii  Taction 
fiscale  conform(iment  aux  lois, et  puni  d'aprcs  la  qualite  du  debt,  soit 
:.j31]  comme  f»arjure,  *soit  comme  infracteur  des  ordonnances  royales. 
Notre  intention  royale,  au  contraire,  est  de  prot<^*ger  et  maintenir 
lesdroits  de  tons  noscberset  tideles  sujets  qui  se  conformeront  strictement 
aux  regies  ci-dessus  dans  leur  commerce  et  navigation  legitime.  En 
eousequence,  nous  avons  ordonne  i\  tous  nos  ministres,  consuls  et  autres 
aijeiits  en  pays  etraugers  d'employer  leurs  soins  les  plus  uctifs  a  ce 
([irils  ne  soient  ni  vexes  ni  molestes,  et,  s'ils  le  sout,  de  leur  aider  si 
obtenir  justice  et  le  redressement  de  leurs  griefs.  Promettons  eu  outre 
d'appnyer  toute  reclamation  fondee  qu'ils  se  trouveront  dans  le  cas  de 
nous  faire  burablement  exposer. 

Donnee  a  Copenbague,  le  4  mai  1803,  sons  notre  main  et  sceau. 

CHRETIEN,  K.  [L.  s.] 

SCIUjniETMAJs'N-SciIESTEDT. 


.jo21    *No.  2.— CHANCEUY-CIRCULAR,  BY  WHICH   PRIVATEERS   ARE   FOR- 
^         HIDDEN   TO  STAY  IN   DANISH   HARIJORS  AND  WATERS  OR  SELL 
THEIR  PRIZES  IN  DENMARK. 

Tlie  royal  department  for  foreign  affairs  has  informed  tbe  cbancery 
tliat  it  has  pleased  His  Majesty,  on  tbe  13th  of  last  month,  to  resolve  as 
follows : 

Privateers  of  whatsoever  nation  are  forbidden  to  stay  in  tbe  Danish  har- 
bors and  waters  ;  in  case  only  when  such  privateers  are  forced  by  evident 
danger,  occasioned  either  by  storms  or  a  pursuing  enemy,  to  seek  their 
1  only  refuge  in  these  harbors,  are  they  allowed  to  be  received  there  and 
obtain  the  assistance  which  humanity  requires;  but  they  are  enjoined,  as 
soon  as  the  danger  is  past,  to  go  to  sea  again.  No  privateer  is  allowed 
to  send  her  prizes  to  Denmark  or  to  sell  them  there ;  nay,  even  in  the 
above-mentioned  case,  when  privateers  in  a  state  of  distress  enter  into 
Danish  harbors,  are  they  forbidden  to  discharge  or  reload  the  prizes 
they  may  have  brought,  or  sell  them  or  their  cargoes,  either  in  retail  or 
wholesale.  For  this  reason  His  Majesty's  subjects  are  strictly  forbidden 
to  i)nrchase  the  prizes  of  foreign  privateers. 

When  foreign  ships  of  war  enter  into  Danish  harbors,  they  are 

iJSS]    allowed  to  take  with  them  into  *the  ports  the  prizes  they  may 

have  taken,  but  they  are  obliged  to  take  them  out  with  them 

[again;  and  they  are  forbidden  at  the  same  time  to  discharge  or  reload 

[them,  or  sell  them  or  their  cargoes,  either  in  retail  or  wholesale. 

Copenhagen,  May  20,  1823. 


rwT. 


122 


TIJKATV    OF    WASHING  ro.N I'AI'lllfS    A('< OMI'AN YJ\(i 


m^ 


\ 


No.  :'..-I,r.TTi;K    I'ATKNTK    CON'CKUNANT    I, A    l.'KNTKKK    KN    VKa'KI'K'    li| 

i/()i{i)()NNAN('i:  h'ovAi.i-:  i)V  J  MAI  irti:i,  I'oii,'  i.'r;(ii,i;ii'  la  condi  in 

DKS  <  OMMKKM'AN'IS    HT  (iKNS    DK    MKi;    l.N    IKMl'S    DK   (ar.IJHi:   KNTKi 
l>'ArTIM:s  ITl'SriANCKS  MAIMTIMK.S,  KTU. 

[Avcc  iiMc  aiiiicxr.  ] 

Sii  IMiiJcsIt'  Ic  Koi  ;i,  c.  d.  dii  11  <1.  c,  iintorist'  Ir  iniiiisti'iv  soussi'-iic ;, 
lappclri'  ii  l<i  iiK'Hioiic  dc  scs  siijcts  Ics  (lisi)()siti<»ns  dc  ronloinuuH'c  dii  i 
iii;u  ISO.'j,  iiyjiiit  |M»ui' ohjct  <U'  iv;;U'r  hi.  condniti'  dcs  (•(HiinuMraiits  ct 
jjoiis  d«'  iiicr  (Ml  tciiips  dc  .micriv  I'litrc  iriiiitics  iiuissanci's  iiiiiritiiiM's,  ct 
i'l  Iciir  liiirc  savoir  ('jialciiiciit  (|IK',  \  ii  la  {i'liciic  (|iii  va  i)r()bal)lniiciii 
I'dalcr,  la  ditc  ordoimaiicc  rcnlrcra  cii  vijiiiriu'  siir  (diacpio  point  iKn 
I'tats  d<»  sa  JMajcsti'  a  ]>aitir  dii  Jour  on  la  i)r('st'iito  Icttro  j>af.i'iitc  y  aiim 

('ti'  pub] ire. 
\r)'M\  Of,  It!  lioi  ayaiitioconiiu  iirccssaiiodcsii])*!)!!''!'!- a  (lucliiiu'.s  uiics 
d<'sdispo.sitioiisdt'('('ttt'oidoinian(;o,(iiiiiroiit  (lu'iiiicaiacti'rofiviic 
ral,  sa  ^lajcsti'  a  aussi  voulu  di'S  a  pivsciit  faiio  douin'r  piiealablemcnt  n 
ses  ynji'ts  tiut'lrpies  iinlioations  (pii  k's  inottcut  a  uu'-iik'  do  jiifjor  qiu'llocst 
la  condiiite  (pi'ils  unroiit  a  teuir  pour  sc  coiiloriiior  conscieiicieuseinent. 
coiniiic  ils  le  doivont,  dans  le  iiienie  esprit  et  oxacteinent  dc  la  iiii'iiu' 
maniere  cpio  Ic  Ifoi  et  son  f;<>uvernenient  le  feiont,  tant  en  g«Mieral  aiix 
stipulations  des  traites  apidicables  aii  cas  de  guerre  dont  il  s'ajjit  (|U;i 
la  declaration  de  neutralite  eonimuniiiuee  i)ar  ordre  du  Itoi  a  plusiours 
l)uissau(;es  ('tranjueres,  et  noiuniement  aux  i)nissanees  eventuelleniciit 
belligerantes,  par  la  note  eireulaire  dont  iin  extrait  se  trouve  ci-joint  en 
tradui.'tion. 

Par  eonsetpient,  le  niinistere  soussiju'iu'  a  egaleinent  ete  charsi'  df 
faire  savoii-  a  tons,  et  de  leeoniinander  a  leur  attention  la  plus  particii 
Here,  ee  (jui  suit: 

§  1.  En  ee  «iui  eoneerne  Tartiele  1  de  I'ordonnance  <lu  4  niai  1803,  Ton 
est  averti  i»ar  la  presente  que  les  jjasseports  royau::  en  latin  y  meiiti 
onnes  sont  re<iuis  jutur  tons  les  voyajjes,  a  Texception  toutefois  de  ccux 
qui,  ayant  pour  i)oint  de  dei)art  un  port  de  I'interieur  et  pour  destina 
tion  un  autre  port  de  la  niouareliie  danoise,  sont  entrepris  daiis 
\~>X)\  la  J5alti*que,  le  Kattegat  et  la  Mer  du  Nord,  ou  bien  qui  ont  lieu 
dans  la  Balti(iue  et  le  Kattegat  en tre  des  ports  danois  et  des  ports 
ueutres. 

(iuoiijue  le  i>asseport  royal  en  latin  ne  soit  valable  que  pour  uu  sen! 
voyage — e.-a-d.,  depuis  le  temps  on  le  navire,  apres  en  avoir  ete  pourvii, 
aura  quitte  le  port  d'ou  il  est  expedie,  jusqu'a  son  retour,  (ordonn.  du  1 
mai  1803,  art.  12) — il  pourra  cependaut,  selou  les  cireonstauces,  etre  re 
nouvele  ujoyeunant  une  simple  attestation. 

Par  les  colleges  meutionnes  a  Particle  9  de  I'ordonnance  du  4  mai  180;i, 
on  devra  compreudre  les  miuisteres  respectifs,  et  quaud  I'article  14  de 
rordounance  fait  mention  du  college  general  d'economie  et  de  commerce, 
ou  enteudra  par  Isl  le  miuistere  des  attaires  etraugeres ;  egalement  le 
miuistere  des  finances  est  a  substituer  a  la  chambre  generale  des  douaiies. 
nommee  dans  le  meme  article. 

Le  passeport  royal  en  Latin  s'expedie  au  miuistere  des  affaires  etraii 
geres,  et  jusqu'a  ce  qu'il  en  soit  autreinent  ordonne,  gratuitement. 

§  2.  Outre  lesobjetsenumeres  ii  I'article  13  de  I'ordonnance  du  1  raai 
1803,  il  faut  encore  entendre  par  contrebande  de  guerre  toutes  fabrica 
tions  pouvant  servir  directement  j\  I'usage  de  la  guerre.  Pour 
[53C]  *le  cas  que  des  cbangements  ou  additions  devraient  etre  introduits 
i\  I'egard  de  la  detinition  des  objets  de  contrebande  de  guerre  par 
suite  de  stipulations  sjwciales  eutre  le  Koi  et  d'autres  ]>uissance8,  le 
miuistere  se  reserve  de  faire  conuaitre  les  decisions  eventuelles  de  si 
Majeste. 


Eft  rait  dc  h( 


COrXTKU    CAHK    OF    Till:    IMTEh    STATKS. 


12;} 


i)'.'),  lOn  coii.s('(|ii«'n(:o  <h'S  dispositions  dcs  traiti'S  en  rif^uour,  (Iniit*' 
;ivt'(!  Ill  (Jran(U'-l>r«'liij4iu'  du  1 1  Jnillct  KJTO,  art.. '5,  ft aiticU'cxplicatoiri', 
,lii  -,'  Juiih't  17<S(>,)  ainsi  ((uV-ii  conrorniiti'  dc;  la  di'claration  de  neu- 
tialiti'  du  Koi,  (voir  Tanncxc,  1",)  il  n'cst  pas  pcrniis  aux  snji'ts  dc  sa 
MajfJ^f''  dVntifr  an  seivit'o  dcs  pnissani'cs  hi'lli<«(''iaiitt's,  on  (ju«'lqne 
ijiiiiliti''  que  ce  soit,  iii  dans  k-nrs  aiinrt-s,  iii dans  It-nrs  niaiines,  ni  plus 
spr'ciaii'HR'nt  dVntrc'ixMidre  lo  pilota;;o  des  naviros  do  flncnv  on  dc 
I  tiaiisitoit  d(!  oc,  jjuissances  on  dehors  des  ]»araj;es  dans  les([uels  le  ]>i- 
lotii}je  se  fait  par  des  pilotes  autoris<''s  par  le  gonvernenient. 

Iji's  dispositions  (pd  pn'-vji'dent  sunt  partees  par  la  pn-sente  a  la  con - 
iiaissaiKU^  de  tons  ceux  <pio  cehi  re<^arde,  pour  leur  intorination  et  pour 
Icnr sL'ivir  d«;  gouverne. 

Copenliayue,  an  niinistere  tWs  all'aires  etrangeres,  eu  20  avril  ISoK 

IJLClLMi:. 


[.■,;)7]  ^VNNKXK. 

E.i'tivif  <h>  hi  note  vh'cnhiire  contenant  la  (Irdaration  de  nvutniUW'  du  roi. 

Le  systeme  (pic  sa  ;>rajest«''  le  lloi  de  Danemarek  entend  suivre  et  ap- 
[l»lif|iR'r  invarial)I(Mnent  est  eelni  d'une  stricte  neutralite,  londre  sur  la 
lovaiite,  I'iinpariialit*'  et  nn  ('{jfal  res[)eet  pour  les  <lroits  de  tontes  les  puis- 
sances.   Cette   neutralite   (selon   les  vues  unifbrnies  des  deux  cours') 
imposerait  au  j>()uvernement  de  sa  INIajeste  lo  Jtoi  de  Daneniarcic  des 
luimyatidiis  et  lui  assurerait  les  avantaj^e.s  suivants  : 

1".  J)e  s'abstenir,  pendant  la  lutte  qui  pourrait  s'enj'aj'ei',  de  toute  par- 
Iticipation,  directe  ou  indirecte,  en  faveur  d'une  des  parties  contendantes 
|au  detriment  de  I'autre ; 

2".  J)'adinettre  dans  les  ports  de  lanionarchie  les  batiinents  de  guerre 

let  (le  commerce  des  i)arties  belligerantes,  le  gouveruemeut  se  reservant 

toiitefois  la  faculte  d'interdire  aux  premiers,  ainsi  (pi'aux  uavires  de 

transport  apparteuant  aux  tiottes  respectives  des  puissances  bellige- 

I  raiites,  I'eutree  du  port  de  Christians*) ; 

Les  reglemeiits  sanitaires  et  de  police  que  les  circoustauces  auraient 
[lonilu  ou  pourraient  rendre  necessaires  devront  naturellement  etre  ob- 
serves et  respectes.    Les  corsaires  ne  seront  pas  admis  dans  les 
■»38J   ports  ni  *toleres  sur  les  rades  des  etats  de  sa  Majeste  danoise  ; 

3".  D'accorder  aux  batiraents  des  puissances  belligerantes  la 
{t'aculte  de  se  pourvoir,  dans  les  ports  de  la  monarchic,  de  toutes  les  den- 
lees  et  marchandises  dont  ils  pourraient  avoi»'  besoin,  a  I'exceptiou  des 
[articles  reputes  contrebaude  de  guerre  ; 

4".  D'exclure  des  ports  de  la  inonarchie  I'eutree — les  cas  de  detresse 
[constatee  exceptes — la  condamnation  et  la  vente  de  toute  i)rise ;  et  entiu, 
5".  Dejouir,  dans  les  relations  commerciales  des  etats  de  sajNtajjeste 
jdanoise  avec  les  pays  eu  guerre,  de  toute  surete  et  de  toutes  facilites 
pour  les  navires  dauois,  ainsi  que  pour  leurs  cargaisons,  avec  obligatiou 
[toiitefois  pour  ces  navires  de  se  conformer  aux  regies  geueralenieut  eta- 
Ib'ics  et  reconnues  pour  les  cas  speciaux  de  blocus  declares  et  eftectifs. 

Tels  sont  les  principes  geueraux  de  la  neutralite  adoptee  par  sa  Ma- 
[jeste  le  lloi  de  Danemarck,  pour  le  cas  qu'une  guerre  eu  Europe  viendrait 
fa  eclater.  Le  Roi  se  flatte  qu'ils  seront  reconuus  conformes  au  droit 
Ides  gens  et  que  leur  loyale  et  fidele  observation  mettra  sa  Majeste  en 
h'tat  de  cultiver  avec  les .  puissances  amies  et  alliees  ces  relations  que, 
[pour  le  bien  de  ses  peuples,  il  lui  tient  taut  i\  cceur  de  preserver  de  toute 
[interruption. 

'  De  C'opei  h  igue  et  de  Stoo  choluu 


Wf' 


tf 


124 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON PAPKHS    AC'COMPAN YlXfJ 


r 


4.H- 


l|5l 

hi 


■1 


i:W]    "No.  4.— TKANSI,ATION.— NOTICK    OF    TIIK    (iKNKKAI>    APPLICATION 
OF  Tin:  DKCKKK   OF  TIIF    4th   OF  MAY,    li-iH,    !M;LATIN(J    To   T||| 
CONDrCT  OF  MKKCIIANTS  AND  NAVRiATOPS  IN  CASK  OF  WAU  IJKTWKFN 
.MAPiriMK   POWKUS. 

COPENIIAGKN,  the  'i:\th  of  July,  1.S70. 

Ill  acconlanco  with  tlio  coniinaiMl  of  His  Majesty  tlic  Kiiif;',  the  minis- 
try of  Ibieigii  affairs  };ives  hereby  public  notice  that  on  account  of  tlic 
war,  now  broken  out  between  France  and  I'rnssia,  the  decree  of  the  Ith 
of  lAlay,  1803,  is  to  jjo  into  etteet  w  ith  the  foHow  iiijj  nioditlcations  : 

§  1.  The  royal  Latin  ship's  pass,  prescribed  by  the  decree  of  the  4tli 
of  May,  1803,  is,  according:  to  tiie  law  of  the  KUh  of  March,  1807,  abro 
gated  for  sinps  which  are  provided  with  certificates  of  nationality  nml 
rej'istrar  and  for  ships  that  are  still  sailin«»'  with  papers  formerly  pre 
scribed  ;  the  bill  of  tonnaj^e,  together  with  other  documents  of  legitiiiia 
tion,  is  to  be  considered  as  a  suHicient  proof  of  the  nationality  of  the 

ship. 
[540]        *  §  2.  The  rule  concerning  the  mitionality  of  the  crew  prescribed 
in  the  decree  of  the  4th  of  May,  1803,  §  8,  is  abrogated  by  the  law 
of  23d  January,  1802,  concerning  the  hiring  of  foreign  sailors. 

§3.  By  the  declaration  signed  in  Paris  the  IGtii  of  April,  1850,  by  tlie 
two  belligerent  jiowers,  and  acceded  to  by  His  3Iajesty  on  the  25th  of 
July  of  the  siime  year,  concerning  the  rights  of  neutral  powers  duiiuj,' 
a  war  between  maritime  powers,  the  following  rules  are  accepted: 

1.  Privateering  is,  and  continues  to  be,  abolished  ; 

2.  The  neutral  tlag  covers  the  hostile  cargo  with  the  exce[)tion  of  con 
traband  of  war ; 

3.  Xeutral  cargo,  w  ith  the  exception  of  contraband  of  war,  is  not  lia 
ble  to  seizure  on  board  of  hostile  ships;  and 

4.  Blockade  in  order  to  be  binding  must  be  effective,  and  must  be 
maintained  by  a  force  sufliciently  strong  to  prevent  access  to  the  hostile 
coast. 

§  4.  Besides  the  articles  mentioned  in  paragraph  XIII  of  the  decree  of  | 
the  4th  of  May,  1803,  all  such  wrought  articles  which  can  immediately 
be  applied  to  the  uses  of  war  are  to  be  looked  upon  as  coutrabaml  ui  | 

war. 

[541]        *h\  case  that  changes  and  additional  rules  in  relation  to  contra  | 
band  of  war  should  become  necessary  in  consequence  of  particn 
lar  agreements  between  His  Majesty  and  foreign  powers,  the  ministry] 
for  foreign  affairs  reserves  to  publish  what  may  be  thought  necessary, 

§  5.  In  consequence  of  the  neutrality  which  His  Majesty  has 
determined  to  maintain  during  the  continuation  of  the  war,  the  royal  I 
subjects  are  herewith  forbidden  to  take  service  in  wiiatsoever  quality  [ 
among  either  of  the  belligerent  powers,  whether  it  be  on  land  or  ( 
board  of  their  government  ships,  as  well  as  more  particularly  to  pilot  I 
the  ships  of  war  and  transport-ships  of  these  powers  outside  of  tliol 
Danish  i)ilot  waters. 

The  ministry  for  foreign  aflairs,  Copenhagen,  the  25th  of  Julv,  1870. 

O.  D.  KOSENORX  LliUN. 


4 


l:..u-l 


No.  5.— GENERAL  INSTRUCTION  FOR  COMMANDERS  OF  SHIPS  IN  DANISH  | 
WATERS  DURING  THE  STATE  OF  NEUTRALITY  OF  DENMARK. 

[542]       *§  1.    The    commander    of   a  vessel  of  war,   sailing  in  our  I 
own  M'aters,  has  as  far  as  possible  to  preserve  order  on  coasts,  | 


COINTER 


*K    OF    Tin:    UNITED    STATES. 


125 


roads,  or  in  harbors,  aim  to  .s»»('  that  coimnorct'  ami  navijjation  ;;o  on  as 
usuiil,  and  withont  interrnption  or  molestation  by  stranjj«'rs. 

^  L*.  All  jmssible  kindness  and  politeness  must  be  shown  to  all  for- 
(jijii  vessels  of  war  of  whatsoever  nation,  bnt  no  active  assistant*e 
imist  in  any  way  bo  rendered  them,  exeept  such  as  is  of  a  purely  linmane 
imtiuo.  It  is  especially  forbidden  to  assist  them  in  loadin^jf,  furnishinj? 
pilots,  or  any  other  nautical  help. 

§3.  In  case  foreign  vessels  of  war  have  communication  with  the 
1,111(1,  the  maintenance  of  order  is  enjoineil  upon  the  police  of  the 
lilace  or  port-captain,  but  assistance  and  advice  are  always  to  be  yielded 
to  such  authorities  whenever  required.  If  contlicts  may  arise,  either 
on  account  of  misunderstandin<<^  (want  of  knowledge  of  language)  on 
the  one  or  the  other  side,  or  on  account  of  excessive  exactions  on  the 
part  of  the  foreign  vessels  of  war,  the  commander  of  the  Danish 
[543J  vessel  of  •war  has  to  intervene  in  a  mediatory,  explanatory,  and 
conciliatory  manner,  but  at  the  same  time  tirady  and  seriously, 
wbenever  the  rights  of  the  King's  subjects  and  the  neutrality  of  the 
Danish  territory  are  concerned. 

§  i.  The  Danish  territory  extends  one  Danish  mile  from  the  fixed 
coast  of  the  King's  lands,  (see  the  circular  of  chancery,  August 
18, 1810,)  except  at  such  places  where  the  distance  between  the  Danish 
and  foreign  coasts  is  less  than  one  mile,  at  which  jdaces  Danish  juris- 
diction extends  to  the  middle  of  the  sea. 

§  5.  It  is  His  Majesty  the  King's  will,  that  ships  of  all  nations  be 
under  the  protection  of  the  King's  sovereignty  while  they  are  within 
the  limits  of  Danish  territory,  in  consetpience  of  which  the  Danish  neu- 
trality is  to  be  maintained  within  the  linnts  of  the  territory,  so  that  (  {>- 
tare  and  v    '^ation  of  ships,  be  they  belligerent,  neutral,  or  Danish,  cau- 

nc         allowed  within  the  territory. 
[')U\  lie  introduction  of  prizes  into   Danish   harbors  is   not 

allow  ed.  When  prizes  are  brought  to  anchor  on  an  open  road  or 
coast  within  limits  of  Danish  territory,  it  is  supposed  to  take  jdace  on 
account  of  urgent  circumstances;  but  then  the  commander  of  the  Dan- 
ish ship  of  war  must  inform  the  prize-master  to  withdraw  the  prize  as 
soon  as  possible;  and,  besides,  special  care  must  be  taken  that  nothing 
is  sold  or  brought  on  shore  from  the  prize  while  staying  on  Danish  ter- 
ritory. Necessary  information  must,  in  respect  to  tliis,  be  given  as  soon 
as  possible  to  the  proper  authorities  ou  laud. 

§  7.  If  a  ship,  be  it  a  war  or  merchant  vessel,  in  its  tlight  from  a  hos- 
tile power,  seek  refuge  in  Danish  territory,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  com- 
mander of  the  port  to  take  it  under  his  protection.  It  is  expected  that 
warning  be  given  to  the  pursuing  ship  of  war,  either  by  sending  a  boat 
with  an  otHcer  or  by  firing  a  warning  salute.  This  will  be  sufficient  to 
prevent  such  a  breach  of  neutrality ;  but  if  against  all  exi>ectatiou 
[545]  a  conflict  or  seizure  •should,  nevertheless,  take  place,  the  Danish 
commander  has  to  Inform  in  a  brief  protest,  written  in  a  firm  but 
polite  tone,  the  commander  of  the  foreign  ship  of  war,  that  a  breach  of 
Danish  neutrality  and  territory  has  been  committed.  The  Danish  com- 
mander then  reports  as  soon  as  possible  to  the  ministry  what  had  taken 
place,  and  sends  a  copy  of  the  protest,  together  with  the  name  of  the 
ship  concerned  and  its  commander,  &c. 

§  8.  If  foreign  ships  of  war  are  inclined  to  enter  into  Danish  ports, 
where  a  Danish  ship  of  war  is  stationed,  the  commander  takes  care  that 
the  ship  conforms  to  the  established  regulations  of  the  harbor,  general 
•18  well  as  local,  such  as  discharging  of  powder,  extinguising  of  fire, 
&c. 


126 


TKE\rY    OF    WASHINGTON PAPERS    ACCOMPANYING 


•     :<»% 


:  r 


§9.  Outside  of  Danish  territory  the  sea  is  to  be  considered  as  v>i)hi 
water,  in  ''onsequence  of  whicli  a  Danish  commander  is  to  look  upuii 
any  enterprise  undertaken  by  the  ships  of  the  belligerent  powers  as  not 
concerning  him. 

If,  however,  foreign  sliips  of  war  in  open  water,  but  within  sijiljt  I 
(."540]    of  a   ]>anish  ship  oi  war,  *shonld  attack  Danish  merchantnitn, | 
the  commanaer  ought  to  see  that  such  ships  be  permited  to  con 
tinue  their  course  as  soon  as  possible;  but  he  is  onlj- allowed  in. such  | 
cases  to  act  niediatingly. 

If  the  foreign  visiting  ship  of  war  declare  it  as  his  duty  to  capture  I 
B-.J\i  a  vessel  on  account  of  its  being  loaded  with  contraband  of  wsirfur 
a  port  of  the  belligerent  powers,  the  commander  of  the  ship  cani)oi| 
make  any  opposition  to  such  an  act ;  he  has  only  to  report,  as  soou  as 
possible,  to  the  ministry  what  had  taken  place. 

If  a  foreign  shin  of  war,  against  all  expectation,  feel  inclined  to  molest 
a  Danish  merchantman,  by  dei)riviug  it  of  its  crew,  gootls.  provisions.  I 
or  by  occupying  the  shij)  for  its  service  as  a  transport  of  sick  persons  (ir 
seized  goods,  the  Danish  commander  must  declare  that  be  is  bound  to 
protect  the  liberty  and  rights  of  his  countrymen  to  navigate  the  m 
unhindered,  a  right  limited  bj' nothing  except  by  the  incouvenienm| 
unavoidable  to  all  seafaring  nations  on  account  of  the  actual  state  ( 
war  J  and  he  must  seriouslj'  and  most  urgently,  in  regard  to  Danii  ] 

ships,  caution  against  any  action  or  transgressing  of  this  limit. 
[547]        Unless  such  an  admonition  is  not  attended  *to,  a  serious  pro 
test  is  lodged  against  the  proceeding  of  the  foreign  ship  of  war  | 
in  which  the  Danish  commander,  besides  declaring  the  action  to  be  nii 
lawful  and  a  breach  of  the  neutrality  of  Denmark,  for  the  consequences  I 
of  w  hich  he  renders  the  concevncd  commander  resi>onsible,  must  in 
every  case  reserve  to  the  ship-owner  or  captain  ample  remuneration  and] 
compensation  for  the  loss  of  goods  ami  time  thus  sustained   by  liim. 
Although  it  is  the  object  of  these  instructions  to  give  the  commanders 
exact  orders  how  to  proceed  in  certain  definite  cavses,  the  ministry  Las. 
at  the  same  time,  been  willing  to  give  them  advice  how  to  actiu  certain  | 
accidental  and  unforeseen  cases,  where  it  depends  ui>on  their  good  con 
duct  and  prudence  combined  with  seriousness  and  determination.    As 
a  rule  for  such  unforeseen  cases,  the  commanders  are  enjoined  toobsem  I 
the  strictest  neutrality,  .abstaining  from  any  sign  of  partiality  either 
for  the  one  or  the  other  of  the  belligerent  powers  whatever,  in  word.sor  | 
actions,  maintaining  the  iieutrality  of  the  Dani.sh  territory  as  well  as 
good  order,  all  in  connection  with  those  outward  tokens  of  i>ol!tenoss| 
and  kiiulness  which  are  in  use  on  board  of  ships  of  war. 


[.-J5J     'No.  6.— TRADUCTION  FRAN^AISE  DE  LA  ^  7(3  Dl'  CODE  PENAL^L'I 

10  Fl^VRIER,  18CC.) 

Celui  qui,  sans  yetreautorise  par  le  roi,entreprendrait  derecrnterdes 
hommes  pour  servir  dans  une  armee  etrangere,  est  puni  de  tnivaux 
forct^s  jusiju'a  six  ans,  si  le  royaume  est  engage  dans  une  guerre,  et.  si 
tel  n'est  pas  le  cas,  d'uno  peine  pouvaut  aller  depuis  deux  mois  de  siinpk  I 
reclusion  jusqu'ii  deux  ans  de  travaux  forces. 

Le  sujetqui,  sans  la  permission  duroi,  s'engageraiten  temps  de  guem 
au  service  d'une  puissance  etrangere  n'etant  pas  en  guerre  avec  le  Daiif 
marck,  est  passible  de  prison,  ou,  suivant  la  nature  dn  cas,  des  travaiu] 
forces  J usqu';\  une  annee. 

L'acte  de  recrutement  est  accompli  depuis  le  moment  on  uu  indivi»la| 
e  8t  accepte  pour  le  service  etranger. 


(  OINTKU    CA.SE    OF    THi:    IMTKI)    STATF.S. 


127 


"49]  *KnjViHh   translat'on  of  paragruph  7^A'A']'/  of  the  Da nixh  penal 

code  of  Fchnutry  W,  18C0. 

Those  who,  without  the  Jiuthority  of  the  Kiiijjf,  attempt  to  recruit  men 
for  service  in  a  foreign  army,  will  be  punishecl  with  forced  labor  for  six 
years,  if  the  kingdom  is  engaged  in  a  war ;  and  if  such  is  not  the  case, 
with  a  penalty  ranging  from  two  months' solitary  continenient  to  two 
years  of  forced  labor. 

The  subject,  who,  without  the  jiermission  of  the  King,  engages  in 
i  times  of  war  in  the  service  of  a  foreign  power  not  at  war  with  Denmark, 
is  liable  to  imprisonment,  or,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  case,  to 
forced  labor,  for  one  year. 

The  act  of  recruiting  is  considered  accotnplished  from  the  moment 
when  an  individual  is  accepted  for  the  foreign  service. 


:,:,0]    'No.  T.— LAW  RF.LATING  TO  THE  KEGISTR  VTIOX  01'  DANLSII  SFIIP3. 

[Translation.] 

We,  Christian  the  Ninth,  by  the  grace  of  God  King  of  Der.nuirk,  the 
Vaudals,  and  Goths,  Duke  of  Slesvig-Holst( m,  Storman,  Ditnuirsh, 
J-aiieuborg,  and  Oldeuborg,  m.ako  known: 

The  rigsdag  have  passed  v.ud  we  have  sanctioned  the  following  law : 

§  1.  To  entitle  a  ship  to  carry  the  Danish  Hag  its  owner  or  owners 
must,  either  by  right  of  birth  have  the  right  of  Danish  uationaUty,  and 
must  not,  in  this  case,  be  domiciliated  abroad,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
owner  or  owners  must  have  acquired  the  same  right  by  having  become 
a  Danish  citizen  in  virtue  of  a  tix*  <1  domicile  in  Denmark.  If  the  ship 
is  owned  by  a  siiare  company  the  hitter  shall  be  subject  to  Danish  law, 
and  its  board  of  directors  have  tlomicile  in  Denmark,  and  be  composed 
of  shareholders  who  fultill  the  above-requiretl  conditions. 

§  2.  A  register  shall  be  kept  of  all  ships  which  are  entitled  to 
351]  carry  the  Danish  flag  and  which  *have  been  measured  according 
to  the  law  of  measurement.  After  entry  on  the  registry  a  docu- 
ment shall  be  delivered  (certificate  of  registry  and  nationality)  which,  as 
long  as  It  remains  in  force,  shall  in  conjunction  with  the  marks  (§  3) 
affixed  to  the  ship  serve  for  and  be  suflicieut  to  identify  it  iu  all  cases 
where  the  question  of  its  nationality  and  identity  may  arise. 

Besides  the  above-mentioned  document,  every  registered  ship  shall, 
both  in  time  of  peace  and  war,  be  provided  with  a  list  of  the  crew,  a 
cnsioms  clearance,  besides  the  necessarj'^  papers  relating  to  the  cargo. 

Ships  of  twenty  tons  burden  and  thereunder,  engaged  in  the  home 
coasting  trade,  are  exempt  from  carrying  the  certiticate  of  registry  and 
nationality ;  they  shall  be  entered  on  a  separate  register  and  only  receive 
a  certiticate  of  measurement,  the  form  of  which  shall  be  decided  by  the 
commissioners  of  customs.  Such  vessels,  however,  may  on  application 
he  entered  on  the  principal  register  and,  vipon  <;onforming  to  the  pro- 
visions of  the  present  law,  obtain  a  certiticate  of  registry  and  nation- 
ality. 

Danish  trading- vessels  shall  hereafter  only  be  entitled  to  carry  the 
ordinary  Danish  trading  (lag,  as  specified  in  the  ordinance  of  the  1 1th 

July,  1748,  §  4. 
■"'-I       *§  3.  All  ships  registered  according  to  5  2  shall  have  tiie  nmrk 
of  nationality,  "  D.  E.,''  (Dausk  Eiendom,viz:  Danish  property,) 


'"'I'! 


128 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON — PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 


«$»- 


!•:  r 


U 


I: 


the  tonnage  jind  registered  letters,  permanently  and  legibly  marked  on 
the  main-beam  in  the  after-part  of  the  main  hatchway;  or,  if  this  can 
not  be  ettV'cted,  in  another  conspicuous  and  suitable  spot.  When  tht.si' 
marks  no  longer  exist,  the  ship  cannot  be  recognized  as  a  Danish  rig 
istered  vessel. 

§  4.  The  registration  of  ships  shall  be  under  the  control  and  superiii 
tendence  of  tlie  commissioners  of  customs,  and  shall  be  effected  in  spc 
cified  registration  districts,  the  extent  of  which  the  commissioners  shall 
limit:  in  Copenhagen,  by  a  special  registrar,  out  of  Copenhagen,  by  the 
local  customs  authorities,  whose  jurisdiction  shall  be  fixed  by  the  ceu 
tral  commissioners,  and  at  the  Feroe  Islands  by  the  district  sheritt". 

The  Copenhagen  registrar  shall  keep  a  general  register  of  all  ships 
registered  in  the  kingdom,  and  issue  the  certificates  of  registry  and  iw 
tiouality  required  by  §  2. 

§  5.  The  ships  belonging  to  each  district  shall  be  entered  on  the 

district  register   in   consecutive  series  and   running  numbers, 

\ooo]    *Ship-owners  mixy  have  their  ships  registered  in  whichever  «lis 

trict  they  please;  the  ship  shall  then  be  considered  as  belongiiif: 

to  this  district.    The  registers  shall  be  kept  in  authorized  books,  wjjicli 

always  shall  remain  by  the  respective  offices. 

§  C.  All  registered  ships  in  the  kingdom  shall  be  entered  in  the  ceii 
tral  register  in  consecutive  order  and  with  running  letters. 

The  letters  a  ship  thus  obtains  in  the  central  or  head  register,  and 
which  are  unchangeable  as  long  as  the  registration  remains  valid,  shall 
be  the  registration  letters  of  the  vessel,  and  shall  be  marked  on  it. 

§  7.  The  register  books,  the  central  as  well  as  the  district  registers, 
shall  contain  the  following  particulars  under  separate  headings,  viz: 

4.  The  ship's  registration  letters,  name,  i)ort  of  registry,  and  phue 
where  built. 

2.  Description  of  ship,  mode  of  construction  with  details,  and  its 
principal  dimensions. 

3.  The  ship's  tonnage,  with  a  statement  of  the  method  followed  iu 
calculating  it. 

4.  The  name  of  the  registered  owner  or  owners,  their  rank  or  profos 

sion,  and  title.  When  there  are  several  registered  owners,  a  state 
[554j    ment  of  their  relative  part  shares  in  the  shii    diall  *be  given. 
If  the  ship  belongs  to  a  company,  its  name,  place  of  business, 
and  managing  owner's  name,  shall  be  inscribed.    The  day  and  the  year  | 
of  the  registration  of  each  ship  shall  be  inscribed  in  the  register-book, 
§  8.  When  a  registered  ship  is  taken  off  or  erased  from  the  register 
book,  the  reason  for  it  must  be  entered  in  the  same,  together  with  date  I 
and  place  of  issue  of  such  vouchers  as  might  prove  that  it  had  cea.sed  | 
to  exist,  has  lost  its  right  of  nationality,  or  has  been  transferred  to  an 
other  registry-district.    (§§  10,  17,  and  10.) 

§  9.  Tlie  owner  of  every  ship  that  is  to  be  registered  nuist  personally.] 
or  through  an  authorized  agent,  give  written  notice  thereof  to  the  rejr 
istrar  of  the  district  to  which  the  vessel  belongs;  or,  if  at  the  time  when  I 
the  registration  is  to  take  place  the  said  vessel  is  in  another  district,  to 
the  registrar  of  such  district.    This  notification  must  be  accompaiiial  | 
by  the  following  i)roofs  : 
1.  The  builder's  certificate,  and,  in  as  far  as  the  ship  is  foreignhuilt. 

the  bill  of  sale,  or  o'Jier  document  in  proof  of  the  transaction. 
[555]    whereby  it  became  Danish  proi)erty,  as  well  as  a  receipt  •for  the] 

paynujut  of  the  im])ort-dues.    These  documents  must    be  pro 
duced  in  the  original  and  in  copies,  which  latter  will  be  retained  in  tbe| 
archives  of  the  register-office. 


[wl]    *he  shi 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES. 


129 


■■':•' -M 


;ts 


JJIVOU. 

isiness 
ic  year  | 
-book. 

egister- 
h  date  I 
ceased  | 
to  ail- 


:u -built.  I 

taction. 

•tbrtbtl 

be  pro 
ilin  tbel 


2.  One  of  the  ship's  owners,  or  owner,  shall  make  a  written  (le(!lara- 
(ion  upon  honor,  siipijorted  by  the  necessary  proofs,  to  the  effe(!t  that 
the}',  or  he,  are  persons  (as  described  by  §  1)  entitled  to  own  a  Danish 
ship.  If  the  ship  is  owned  by  a  share  coni|)any,  then  one  of  its  direct- 
ors must  give  the  like  declaration  and  proofs  that  they  have  coniitlied 
with  the  requirements  of  §  1.  Those  declarations  shall  further  contain 
an  assurance  that  the  certificate  of  registry  and  nationality  thus  ob- 
tained shall  not  be  misused  to  procure  for  any  other  ship,  or  the  same 
ship  ill  possession  of  foreigners,  the  privileges  of  Danish  nationality. 
This  declaration  shall  be  signed  by  the  party  concerned,  either  in  the 
jueseiice  of  the  registrar,  or  before  a  public  notary. 

Should  iloubts  arise  as  to  whether  the  party  concerned  is  entitled  to 
own  a  Danish  ship,  he  must  ])rove  his  title  by  an  attestation  from  the 
authorities  at  his  place  of  residence. 

In  special  cases,  the  board  of  customs  may  make  exceptions 
[556]  with  respect  to  proofs  recjuired,  if  *satisfactory  explanations 
through  other  channels  are  given. 
§  10.  When  the  local  registrar  has  drawn  np  the  necessary 
statement  with  respect  to  registration  and  measurement,  he  slnill  send 
it  in  (with  vouchers)  without  delay  to  the  central  registrar  in  ('()i>enha- 
{ton.  The  latter  shall  check  the  measurements  and  examine  tlii^  accom- 
panying voucners  in  proof  thereof,  and  he  may,  if  considered  necessary, 
cause  the  ship  to  be  wholly  or  partially  renieasured  and  fresh  docu- 
ments and  proofs  to  be  pro(mred.  In  virtue  of  the  proofs  thus  collected 
the  ship  shall  be  entered  in  the  central  register- book. 

§  11.  When  the  registration  is  eifected,  tlie  registrar-general  shall 
issue  a  certirt(!ate  of  registry  and  nationality,  which  shall  include  the 
eertiticate  of  measurement  and  other  details  re(piired  by  §  7. 

The  certiiicate  shall  be  ma«le  out  in  a(!Cordance  with  the  subjoined 

furniulary.     It  shall  (together  with  the  documentary  proofs  sent  in)  be 

Stilt,  without  delay,  to  the  local  registrar,  who  thereupon  shall  make 

the  necessary  «Mitry  in  the  local  register-book,  § .").)    After  having  caused 

the  mark  of  nationality,  "  D.  E.,"  the  tonnage  and  registry  hitters  to  be 

marked  on  the  vessel,  and  the  stamp  having  duly  been  paid, 

557]    *he  shall  deliver  the  eertiticate  to  the  owner.     IJefore  the  ship 

clears,  the  registrar  shall  make  an  imlorsement  on  the  certiiicate 

jof  the  master's  name  and  comi)etency  to  command  a  vessel. 

If,  at  the  time  of  registration,  the  ship  is  not  in  the  district  where 

she  is  (vished  to  be  registered,  the  registrar,  who  has  delivered  up  the 

[ccrtirtcate,  shall  transmit  to  the  registrar  of  the  distriiit  wIkm-c  s!ie  be- 

IiiU},'s  the  documents  and  information  required  by   §  D,  to  enable  the 

[latter  to  enter  her  on  the  register-book  of  his  district. 

Witii  respect  to  the  Feroe  Islands,  the  county  or  district  sheriff  shall 
issue  a  jn'ovisional  certificate^  of  nationality  in  the  form  to  be  hereafter 
piieeified  by  the  authorities,  and  which  shall  be  valid  until  such  time  as 
[tlie  (,'o[H'nhagan  registrar-general  issues  a  i>ermanent  document. 

i  1-.  The  certificate  shall  always  remain  with  the  ship,  and  be  ]>ro- 
I'lueed  at  the  customhouse,  as  well  as  wherever  required  by  the  Danish 
[I'ivil,  military,  or  consular  authorities.  Every  change  or  indorsement 
jot'  the  certificate  by  others  than  the  registrars  or  consuls  is  prohibited, 
jand  may  expose  the  holder  to  punishment;  in  some  cases  (according  to 
|t'iieuiiistances)  as  for  forgery. 
§  I'J.  A  ship,  built  or  purchased  abroad  for  Danish  account,  cannot 
be  registered  until  she  arrives  in  ii  Danish  registry  district. 
i.i5S]  •Danish  consuls,  however,  upon  receiving  the  documentary 
proofs  required  by  §  0,  (1  and  2,)  may  issue  provisional  certittcatea 
i)  A— II 


^;F 


;  •  !^f . 


5^' 


;  •  f 


m 


130 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 


Am- 


f\ 


j5SW 


of  iiiitioiiality,  wliicli  shall  remain  5n  force  until  the  final  I'egistration  of 
the  ship  i.s  ett'ected. 

^uch  provisional  certificates  of  nationality  shall  contain  the  following 
particnlars : 

1.  Name  and  description  of  the  ship. 

2.  Time  and  place  of  purchase,  together  with  name  of  the  Daiiisl 
owner  or  owners,  according  to  the  bill  of  sale  or  other  title-deed. 

3.  Captain's  name. 

4.  The  most  accurate  iufornuition  as  to  her  tonnage,  build,  and  de- 
scription, which  can  be  obtained. 

5.  Duration  of  the  certificate's  validity. 

A  duplicate  of  su(!h  provisional  certificate  shall,  immediately  aitor 
the  issue,  be  sent  through  the  proper  government  department  to  the 
registrar-general  in  Coi)enhagen. 

Such  ju'ovisional  certificate  of  nationality  shall,  however,  only  bo 
valid  lujtil  the  arrival  of  tlie  ship  at  a  Danish  i)ort,  w'neu  it  shall  l)e  de 
livered  up  to  the  registrar,  and,  provided  no  special  ])ernHssion  has 
been  giant(Hl  to  the  contrary  by  the  commissioners  of  customs,  shall  iii 
no  case  remain  in  force  longer  than  two  years  from  the  date  of  its  issue. 
The  master  of  a  Danish  registered  shi))  which  is  rebuilt  abroad  iiiny 
require  the  nearest  consular  office  to  give  him  authority  tr  retain  his 
ceitificate  of  registry  until  he  shall  arrive  at  a  Danish  port,  where  his 
ship  can  undergo  examination  as  to  whether  the  alteration  made  in 
her  shall  render  the  issue  of  a  new  certificate  necessary.  Such 
[oaO]  authorj/ation,  however,  *cannot,  without  si>ecial  i)ermissioii 
granted  by  the  commissioners  of  customs,  remain  in  force  loiijiin 
than  two  years  from  its  date  of  issue. 

§  14.  Every  registered  ship  shall  carry  her  own  name  and  port  of 
registry  marked  in  light-colored,  legible  letters  on  a  dark  ground  (or 
rice  versa)  on  a  consi)i(tuous  part  of  her  stern,  (,'oncealing  »ir  obMter- 
ating  those  names  shall  only  be  permitted  in  time  of  war  to  escipe 
capture  by  the  eiuMuy. 

Xo  shij)  shall  be  designated  by  any  other  than  its  registered  name. 
A  registered  ship's  name  can  only  be  altered  through  change  of  owner 
ship,  and  then  only  with  the  consent  of  the  commissioners  of  cnstoni. 
in  which  case  a  new  certificate  shall  benijideout,  but  in  the  registration 
letters  shall  remain  unchanged. 

§  15.  On  application  to  the  commissioners  of  customs  a  new  certificate 
of  registry,  exactly  corresponding  w  ith  the  former,  may  be  given,  iu 
which  case  the  old  one  must  be  returned. 

in  the  event  of  a  certificate  of  registry  having  been  lost,  a  fresli 
[.")()()]    one  can  be  obtained,  likewise  on  *ai)plication    to  the  customs 
authorities. 

In  all  cases  where  a  new  certificate  is  givvu  without  remeasureinent 
at  the  sanu^  tinu^  having  taken  place,  the  api»licant  is  only  rejjuiredto 
,  pay  the  stamj)  duty. 

if  the  loss  of  the  certificate  takes  place  abroad  the  nearest  consnlar 
ofticer  nuiy  give  a  provisional  certificate,  (§  15,)  accompanied  with  special 
renuiiks  exphuiatory  of  its  issue.  In  this  case  the  applicant  shall  inaiie 
a  declaration,  eiu\nu'rating  the  particulars  of  the  loss. 

§  H».  If  a  registered  ship  is  lost,  broken  up,  or  otherwise  destrovefl.  | 
the  owner  shall  immediately  give  written  notice  thereof  to  the  re   - 
trar  of  the  jjort  of  registry  of  such  ship  and  deliver  up  to  him  the  cernii 
cate  of  registry  in  order  to  have  it  canceled;  or,  when  lost,  explain    liy 
it  6annot  be  returned. 


COlDfTER   CASE   OF   THE    UNITED    STATES. 


131 


If  the  ship  is  lost  abroafi  the  ahove  notice  wiuill  be  given  to  a  Danish 
oonsni  and  the  certiti<'ate  di'livered  to  him. 

The  consul  shall  then  transmit  these  documents  with  the  particulars 
of  the  loss  to  the  proper  jjiivernment  department. 

§  17.  Whenever  any  re;;istered  ship  or  share  in  a  ship  becomes 
[561]  vested  ii»  a  person  not  ((ualilied  to  be  owner,  (§  1,)  *and  she  in 
this  manner  loses  her  rij^ht  to  be  considered  as  Danish  property 
and  carry  the  Danish  tlajr,  the  rejji.stered  owner  shall  iiinnediately  give 
ivritten  notice  of  tJie  transfer  to  re«^istrar  of  the  port  where  the  ship  is 
lyins:,  in  order  that  the  mark  *'D.  E."may  be  obliterated.  He  (the 
registered  owner)  shall  likewise,  within  four  weeks  from  the  receipt  of 
iiotitication  of  the  transfer,  jjive  written  notice  of  the  transaction  and 
deliver  up  the  certiticate  of  registry  to  *^he  registrar  of  the  ship's  port 
of  registry. 

If  the  transfer  has  taken  place  abroa<l,  the  notification,  witli  the  cer- 
titicate and  other  ship's  diMMiments,  shall  immediately  be  sent  to  the 
Dullish  consul,  who  shall  cause  the  mark  "  1).  E,"  to  be  erased,  and 
send  the  <locuments  in  <|uestion  to  his  government.  At  places  where 
there  is  no  Danish  consul,  the  owner  or  master  sliall  obtain  a  notarial 
ceitirtcate  to  the  effect  that  the  mark  "  D.  E."  has  been  obliterated, 
and  transmit  the  documents  and  certificate  as  above  mentioned  to  the 
ren;istrcir-gc:cral  in  CoiM'uhagen. 

If  a  registered  ship,  or  a  share  thereof,  either  by  i>ublic  sale  or  by 
inheritance,  becomes  the  proiM*rty  of  another,  the  authorities  who  havo^ 
effected  the  sale,  or  administered  the  estate,  or,  i^"  abroad,  the  consul,. 

shall  comply  with  the  jirovisions  of  the  law  in  these  respects. 
[.)()2]       *The  above  provisions  likewise  apply  to  the  case  of  a  Danish 
ship  being  condLmned  al»ro  ul  as  unseaworthy. 

§18.  Change  of  ownershv|».  )iot  touching  on  the  ship's  right  of  car- 
rying the  J3anish  Hag.  togetlnM-  with  other  alterations  regarding  the 
particulars  registeretl  in  pursuance  of  §  7.  shall,  within  four  weeks 
:ilier  the  change  or  alteration  has  taken  place,  be  notified  to  the 
registrar  concerned  by  the  owner,  or,  in  case  of  change  of  ownership, 
by  the  new  owner :  and,  as  far  as  any  proofs  in  this  respect  are  required, 
pursuant  to  §  0,  the  aljove  transactions  must  be  substantiated  before 
the  registrar  aforesaid,  in  order  that  any  necessary  rectification  may  be 
made  in  the  register-lfook. 

Cliaiige  of  owner  or  master  does  not  necessitate  the  issue  of  a  new 
mtificate  of  riationality,  unless  this  might  be  requested ;  an  indorse- 
ment of  the  circumstance  on  the  original  will  only  be  required. 

When  such  changes  take  place  abroad,  the  nearest  consular  ofticc 
shall  make  these  imhirsements,  and,  in  case  of  change  of  ownership, 

report  the  circumstance. 
:  "103]        *  When,  on  the  other  hand,  a  registered  ship  is  so  altered  with  re- 
spect to  kind,  burden,  or  otherwise,  that  she  no  longer  answers  to 
the  description  embodied  in  the  certificate  of  registry,  the  registrar  of  the 
I  district  she  belongs  to  shall  either  iiulorse  on  the  certificate  the  nature 
of  the  alteration  that  has  taken  place,  or,  according  to  circumstances, 
nmse  a  new  registration  to  l>e  made,  and  issue  a  fresh  certiticate.     If 
,  the  alteiation  takes  place  abroad,  the  nearest  consular  officer  shall  make 
Jthe  indorsement  and  re|K»rt  the  case,  (§  13.) 

Every  registrar  in  the  kingdom  shall,  without  delay,  report  to  the 
[registrar-general  in  Co|K'nhagen  all  such  changes  that  may  have  taken 
[place  ill  the  ships  of  his  district. 

5  ID.  When  it  is  wished  to  tniur'fer  a  registered  ship  fro  i  one  district 


•,H3 


132 


TREATY    OP   WASHINGTON PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 


■!  ! 


I  - 


i' 


^*  J  < '' 


u 


to  another,  a  written  demand  to  this  effect  must  bo  addressed  by  the 
owner  or  owners  to  tlie  u<;tiKiI  registrar. 

Theoriginal  certificate  sliall,  in  tins  case,  be  sent  in  .as  soon  as  possible 
eitlier  to  the  registrar  of  the  district  wiiere  the  ship  hitherto  has  he- 
longed  to,  or  of  tliat  to  wliicli  she  is  going  to  be  transferred,  iu  order 

that  a  fresh  one  may  be  issued. 
1 504]  *§  20.  Copies  of  entries  on  the  registers  may  be  obtained 
on  application,  for  the  charge  of  one  rixdollar  for  each  ship  in- 
quired about.  On  the  same  condition  lft;i[ally  certified  copies  of  oldw. 
or  canceled  certificates,  may  likewise  be  obtained  from  tlie  registrar 
general  iu  Copenhagen,  as  well  as  a  statement  of  the  reasons  for  giving 
the  copy. 

§  21.  In  case  an  owner,  on  account  of  special  circumstances,  desires 
permission  for  an  unregistered  Danist  hip  to  sail  from  one  home-port 
to  another,  the  commissioners  of  custt.n  ;  may,  on  ai)plication,  give  a 
pass  or  permit,  which  shall  have  the  validity  of  a  certificate  of  registry 
within  the  above-mentioned  limits. 

§  22.  Every  act  tending  to  procure  the  registration  of  a  ship  without 
complying  with  the  provisions  of  the  present  law  shall,  provided  the 
nature  of  the  act  does  not  entail  heavier  i)un1shment,  be  liable  to  a  fine 
of  not  exceeding  2  rixdollars  for  every  ton  of  the  ship's  burden. 
[505]  *§  23.  If,  after  the  drawing  up  and  delivery  of  a  certificate  of  reg- 
istry, it  is  proved  that  such  document  has  been  fraudulently  ob- 
tained for  an  authorized  ship,  a  fine  of  not  exceeding  5  rixdollars  for 
each  ton  of  the  ship's  burden  shall  be  inflicted,  and  the  offender  shall 
still  be  liable  to  such  further  punishment  as  the  nature  of  the  otteuse 
might  entail  at  ordinary  criminal  law. 

Such  certificate  shall,  by  public  notice,  be  called  in  and  canceled  as 
soon  as  possilile. 

§  24.  A  penalty  of  not  exceeding  50  rixdollars  shall  be  paid  for  the 
neglect  to  notify  alterations  which  have  deprived  a  ship  of  her  right  to 
carry  the  Danish  colors. 

If  such  neglect  is  intentional,  with  a  view  to  use  the  certificate  for  lu- 
crative purposes,  as  a  proof  of  nationality  for  an  unauthorized  ship,  a  fine 
of  not  exceeding  5  rixdollars  per  ton  of  the  ship's  burden  shall  be  paid. 

§  25.  Neglect  to  return  certificate  of  registry  as  iirescribed  by  §§  I'i 

and  17,  and  to  cause  the  erasure  tluMC  enjoined  of  the  letters 

[500]    "  D,  E."  to  be  effected,  *shall  be  punishable  by  a  fine  of  not  ex 

ceeding  2  rixdollars  for  each  ton  of  the  ship's  burden,  unle."i< 

sufficient  reason  for  the  neglect  may  be  given.     Such  certificate,  if  the 

ship  still  exists,  shall  be  declared  canceled  by  public  advertisement. 

§  20.  The  cojumissioners  of  customs  shall  fix  the  amount  of  fines  in 
flicted  according  to  §§  22-25,  and  have  also  power  to  infiict  penalties 
not  exceeding  20  rixdollars  for  breaches  of  the  present  law  not  other 
wise  punishable,  as  well  as  for  infractions  of  any  later  sui>plementary 
enactments. 

§  27.  The  registered  owner,  or,  iti  case  of  joint  property,  the  owners, 
all  and  each  of  them,  are  liable  for  the  payment  of  the  above  fines. 

With  respect  to  share  companies,  tlie  members  of  the  board  of  di 
rectors,  one  and  all,  shall  be  liable  for  the  said  tines. 

§  28.  Persons  not  customs  officials  or  in  the  service  of  customs,  called 

upon  to  i»ay  fines  pursuant  to  this  law,  may  appeal  to  the  ordinary 

courts,  in  which  case  the  commissioners  of  customs  shall  cause 

[507]   'the  matter  to  be  tried  as  an  ordinary  police  case,  ami  the  court 

is  then   to  decide  whether  the  party  concerned  is  guilty,  audio 

this  case  what  penalty  he  shall  be  liable  to. 


COUNTER   CASE   OF    TH.     UNITED    STATES. 


133 


Apppal  on  V.clialf  of  the  Crown  sliall,  moreover,  be  decided  on  bj'  the 
said  cominissioners.    The  fines  fall  to  the  treasury. 

i  2!>.  The  cominissioners  of  customs  shall  draw  up  the  necessary  in- 
structions for  the  proper  carrying  out  of  this  law. 

5  .{0.  This  law,  a  coi)y  of  which  shnll  accompany  the  delivery  of  every 
certificate, coMies  into  force  on  the  Jst  of  October,  1807,  after  which  date 
all  previous  enactments  in  contradiction  to  its  provisions  shall  be  an- 
uulled. 

The  provisions  of  the  present  law  may,  with  sncli  modifications  as  local 
circiiuistances  may  render  necessary,  atid  after  the  necessary  negotiations 
with  their  legislatures,  be  made  api)licable  to  Iceland  and  the  Danish 
AVest  Indian  possessions. 


h 


PROVISIONAL   REGULATION. 

[568]  §  31.  Vessels  which,  at  the  date  of  this  law  coming  *into  force, 
already  are  Danish  property,  and  as  such  provided  with  the  hith- 
erto-nsed  mark  of  nationality  and  entered  in  the  hitherto-used  slnpping- 
refrister,  but  whose  certificate  of  measurement  is  out  of  date,  shall  be 
registered  according  to,  and  comi)ly  with  the  provisions  of,  the  present 
law. 

Vessels  whose  certificate  of  measnrement  has  not  yet  run  out  may,  on 
application  to  the  registrar,  be  remeasured  and  registered  ac(!ording  to 
'.lie  regulations  of  the  present  law,  in  which  case  the  old  certificate  must 
he  delivered  up. 

All  parties  concerned  shall  comply  with  the  preceding  enactment. 

(iiven  at  the  palace  of  Amalienborg  the  13th  day  of  March,  18G7, 
niider  our  royal  hand  and  seal. 

CHRISTIAN  R.    [l.  s.] 

C.  A.  FONNESBECII. 


;.>C9j 


*Xo.    YIII.  — PEUSSIA. 


MEMORANDUM. 

In  the  year  1S55  several  attempts  were  made,  especially  in  the  Prus- 
sian lihine  i>rovince,  to  enlist  Prussian  subjects  into  service  in  the 
British  foreign  legion. 

The  inquiries  instituted  produced  the  suspicion  that  the  English  con- 
sul at  Cologne,  Curtis,  was  concerned  in  these  enlistments.  He  was 
therefore  subjected  to  a  judicial  investigation  in  accordance  with  }] 
III  of  the  Prussian  penal  code  of  April  II,  1851,  which  is  as  follows: 

Whoever  I'ulists  a  Pnissiiin  into  the  military  Hnrvico  of  fi»rei<^ii  powers,  or  brings  liim 
to  tlie  iM'rsons  eiilistiiiji;  for  tliesanit!;  likewise  whoever  so«liices  a  I'riissian  soldier  to 
'l«<ert. or  (lesijfiiedly  assists  his  desertion,  is  piiiiishulile  with  iminisontrtent  of  from 
iliree  months  to  three  years.  The  attempt  to  commit  these  acts  is  subject  to  the  same 
pmiishiiient. 

The  said  Curtis,  who  hatt  become  by  naturalization  a  Prussian,  was 
coiKkMnned  at  the  first  trial  to  three — upon  appeal  to  six — months'  im- 
prisonment. 

At  the  desire  of  the  British  government  this  punishment  was,  by 
means  of  royal  pardon,  remitted,  and  he  was  recalled  from  his  post  at 
Cologne. 

Berlin,  March  14,  1872. 


"W 


m 


m\ 


% !  i 


'1  ', 

V  - 


i:  1 '  ■ 


134         TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON — PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 

[570]  *No.  IX.— KUSSIA. 

Code  of  laica  of  ilie  Russian  Empire,  edition  of  1857. 

Vol.  15,  the  Penal  Code,  book  third  of  crimes  agniust  the  state. 

*«  «  *.*  *  *  « 

Art.  203.  If  any  Kussian  subject  in  time  of  peace  attacks  with  ojxmi 
force  tlie  inhabitants  of  nei}»hbonn{?  or  other  states,  and  throu}»h  tliat 
exposes  his  country  to  danger  of  rupture  witli  a  friendly  power,  or,  at 
least,  to  a  similar  attack  on  the  part  of  subjects  of  that  power  on  Kus- 
sian territories,  for  this  crime  against  national  law,  (the  law  of  nations.) 
he  himself  and  all  participating  in  it  of  their  own  will  with  knowledge 
of  the  crime  and  of  the  unlawfulness  of  his  undertaking  are  con 
demned  : 

To  deprivation  of  all  civil  rights  and  to  exile  with  hard  labor  in  a 
fortress  for  a  i)eriod  of  from  8  to  10  years ;  and  if  they  are  not  exoni|it 
by  law  from  corporal  ])uni.shment,  to  i)unishment  by  whip[>ing  by  the 
exe<nitioner  in  the  measure  fixed  in  Art.  21  of  this  code  for  the  lii'tli 
degree  of  punishment  of  this  kind  with  branding. 


Complete  collection  of  laws,  {vol.  xxxiii,  p.  757,  1858,  June  10,  33302,)  of 
the  measure  of  punishment  for  crimes  against  the  security  of  powers 
friendly  to  Etissia. 

[571]  If  one  of  the  crimes  mentioned  in  Articles  275,  270,  *277,  283, 
218  and  287,  of  the  penal  code,  shall  bo  committed  against  a 
foreign  state,  with  which,  on  the  basis  of  treaties  or  published  laws  or 
decrees,  there  is  established  a  reciprocity  in  this  respect,  or  against  the 
supreme  power  of  that  state,  those  guilty,  provided  there  is  added  to 
this  no  crime  meriting  a  greater  puni.shment,  are  condemned : 

To  loss  of  all  civil  rights  and  privileges  .and  of  all  personal  and  class 
distinctions,  and  to  exile  in  the  government  of  Tomsk  or  Tobolsk;  or 
if  they  are  not  exempt  from  corporal  punishment,  to  delivery  over  to 
tiie  companies  of  <lisciplinary  arrest  of  the  civil  authorities  for  a  period 
of  from  one  and  one-half  to  two  and  one-half  years,  or  of  from  one  to 
one  and  one-half  years. 

When  the  crime  has  been  committed  with  aggrav^ating  circumstances, 
then  to  loss  of  all  rights  and  to  exile  as  a  colonist  iu  Siberia,  in  the  not 
most  distant  places. 


Code  of  laws,  &c.,  vol,  xv,  hooTc  iv,  chap.  vii. 

Art.  307.  Any  one  who,  leaving  his  country,  enters  into  the  service 
of  a  foreign  power,  without  the  permission  of  the  government,  or 
becomes  a  subject  of  a  foreign  power,  is  liable  for  this  breach  of  his  duty 

of  subjection  and  his  oath  of  allegiance  : 
[572]       *To  loss  of  all  civil  rights  and  eternal  exile  from  the  limits  of 
the  empire ;   or,  in  case  of  his  voluntary  return  to  liussia,  to 
exile  in  Siberia. 


Kg.  X.— THE    NETHERLANDS. 

No.  1.  Extract  from  the  penal  code  of  the  Netherlands. 
No.  2.  Circulars  with  reference  to  neutrality. 


COUNTER    CA«E    OF    THE    UNITED   STATES.  135 

No.  1.— EXTRACT  FROM  THE  I'ENAL  CODE. 
[Translation.] 

De  (jrotuhcet  voor  pet  Konhufcijk  dcr  yederlanden,  deNcdcrlandsclw  Wet- 
hocken.  (Schiedam,  I8G0,)  Wetbocic  van  Stva/tcgt.  Lib.  Hi,  cpt.  i,  sec.  /,  j>/>. 
liiO,  077. 

Art.  84.  Whosovor  sliall,  by  hostile  acts  not  approvctl  by  the  fjovortj- 
iiieiit,  expose  tlie  state  to  a  declaration  of  war,  shall  be  luniishcd  with 
Ijiiiiislinient,  and  if  war  be  actually  carried  out,  he  shall  be  punished 
with  transi)ortation. 

AiiT.  85.  Whosoever  shall,  by  acts  not  approved  by  the  government, 
expose  Frenchmen*  to  reprisals,  shall  be  punished  with  batiislnnent. 

'XoTK. — It  will  be  oltMcrvcd  that  the  above  ai'ticlen,  translated  from  tln!  existing 
code  of  the  Netlierlands,  are  an  (^xact  transcript  from  the  cofh;  ])enal  of  France, 

l.')(3]  which  was  introduced  into  the  Netherlands  at  the  time  of  the  ann<^xion  *of  the 
Netherlands  to  France,  ami,  of  course,  all  tlie  commentaries  on  the  subject  of  the 

FiPiii'h  code,  aud  of  the  other  continental  codes,  are  applicable  to  that  of  the  Ncther- 

)jllllH. 


'Ff» 

■'■'ll 

tM 

1% 


mm 

m 

nmWH 

H' ' ' 

mm 

m 

Translation  of  circular  of  Ajiril  14,  1854. 
[Nederlaudscbo  Staats-Conrant,  Saturday,  April  15,  1854.] 

It  having-  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  minister  of  foreign  atlairs  that 
plans  exist  to  export  .am  munition  of  war,  contrary  to  the  duties  imposed  by 
the  laws  of  peoples,  to  neutrals,  he  thinks  it  his  duty  to  call  the  attention 
ot'ship-ownersand  ship-chandlers  to  the  danger  to  which  they  would  expose 
tlii'inselves  by  such  expeditions,  but  also  to  the  fatal  consequences  and 
trouble  which  Dutch  vessels  would  have  to  suffer,  if  with  tlie  belliger- 
ent powers  the  confidence  could  not  exist  that  said  Hag  will  not  be 
used  in  any  case  for  any  unhiwful  transport  of  contrabaiul  of  war. 

liy  the  assurance,  received  by  the  King's  government,  that  the  rule 
(tree  ship,  free  goods)  will  be  respected  by  all  the  belligerent  powers, 
that  for  contraband  of  war  and  for  dispatches  for  one  of  the  belligerent 
powers  alone  an  exception  Avill  be  made,  and  Jhat  the  search,  whether 
vessels  carrying  the  Dutch  flag  contain  such  contraband,  will  be 
[574]  made  in  the  easiest  manner  possible,  it  is  for  *the  honest  trader 
atid  ship-owner  of  the  greatest  import,  that  everywhere  the  con- 
viction exists,  that  no  abuses  will  take  place  uiuler  protection  of  the 
Dutch  flag,  and  that,  as  such,  no  cause  be  given  to  raise  unfavorable 
opinions  about  those  having  the  privilege  to  use  this  flag. 

His  Majesty's  government  would  be  unable  to  protect  vessels  which, 
contrary  to  the  duty  of  neutral  states,  contained  contraband  of  war,  or 
were  charged  with  forbidden  dispatches. 

VAX  HALL. 

The  Hague,  April  14, 1854. 


Translation  of  circular  of  April  15,  1854. 

[Nederlaudche  Staats-Couraut,  Sunday  16  aud  Monday  April  17,  1854.] 

According  to  decrees  of  the  King,  the  ministers  of  foreign  attairs, 
of  justice,  and  of  the  uavy  anuouuce,  to  all  those  whom  it  may  concern, 


^m 


ftfl! 


IHIF 


136 


TRKATY    OF   WASHINGTON PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 


4m»' 


:V* 


tlint  ill  ordor  to  tnaintain  a  complete  neutrality  in  tlie  present  war,  no 
crnist'is,  muler  any  tlajfs,  eoimnissions,  or  lettres  <le  niai'«|ne  whatever, 
will  hv  admitted  within  our  sea-ports,  with  or  without  prizes,  exiiept  in 
cases  of  sea-danger,  and  that,  in  any  case  whatever,  such  criiiscis 
[575j  and  their  prizes  will  be  watched  and  be  ordered  to  sea  us  soon  "as 
Iiossible. 

The  ministers  tabove  named, 

VAN  HALL. 
I)()>  P.KH  OUKTIUS. 
J.  J^NSLIE. 
The  Hague,  April  15, 1854. 


No.  8.— CIUCI:LAK  with  reference  to  NEITRALITY. 


UN !' 
Si' 


:.;i 


Translation  of  circular  of  April  16,  1854. 

The  minister  of  torei<in  aftalis  and  the  minister  of  Justice,  empowoml 
thereto  by  the  Kin*;,  warn  by  these  presents  all  inhabitants  of  the  kin;' 
dom  not  to  eiijfaye  in  any  manner  whatever,  during:  the  present  war,  in  |iri 
vateering,  as  no  lettres  de  marque  ^iven  by  bellijjerent  powers,  witliont 
consent  of  the  Dutch  government,  to  Dutch  citizens,  will  have  any  legal 
force. 

Tlie  ministers  aforesaid  further  aniiounce  to  the  public  that  the  Dutch 
government,  observing  a  stii(!t  neutrality,  will  not  grant  sanction  to 
commis.sions  or  lettres  de  manpie,  and  that,  therefore,  the  King's  sub 
jects,  and  all  those  who  for  any  reason  whatever  are  subject  to  the  laws 
of  the  kingdom  who,  on  such  documents,  should  engage  in  privateering' 
or  help  thereto,  can  be  considered  by  other  powers  as  pirates  and  treated 
as  such,  and  will  be  jHosecuted  by  Dutch  Judges,  and  for  crinie 
[570]    against  the  *safetv  of  the  state,  and  i'ov  robberv  on  the  highway, 

A' AX  JJALL. 
D.  DOXJJEU  CUKTIUS. 

The  Hague,  Aiml  IG,  1854. 


Tranalution  of  circular  of  11th  June,  ISGl. 

[NodiTlandselio  Staats-Couraut,  Sunday  IG  and  Monday  June  17,  1861.] 

The  ministers  of  foreign  affairs  and  of  Justice,  empowered  thereto  by 
the  King,  by  these  presents  warn  all  inhabitants  of  the  kingdom  nut 
to  engage  in  any  way  or  manner  in  jirivateering  during  the  presont 
troubles  in  the  United  States  of  North  Aineri(!a,  as  the  Dutch  govoiii 
ment  (having  agreed  some  time  ago  to  respect  the  rules  of  sea-right,  fixed 
ui)on  by  the  Conf/rcss  of  Paris  of  1850,  where  amonp  other  things  privi'tm- 
ing  teas  abolished)  will  not  grant  sanction  to  commissions  or  lettres  de 
luarque,  that  therefore  commissions  or  lettres  de  marque  which  contrary 
to  the  above-named  rules  will  lie  issued  to  Dutch  citizens  will  have  no 
legal  consequence  whatever,  and  that,  therefore,  the  King's  subjects  and 
all  those  subject  for  whatever  reason  to  the  laws  of  the  country,  who  on 
such  pai)ers  might  engage  in  privateering  or  help  thereto,  may 
[577J    be  considered  by  other  nations  as  *pirates,  and  will  be  pros- 


COUNTER   CASE    OF   TFIE    UNITED    STATES. 


137 


-J-J  "^. 


onited  by  Dutcli  jndgos  for  such  acts  committed  as  are  punishable  by 

law. 

The  ministors  aforesaid, 

VON  ZUYLKX. 
VAX  NYKVKLT. 
GODEFUOl. 


78] 


•XI.  — SWEDEN. 


Ordonnance  (In  Rol,  relniivemcnt  ft  ee  qui  doit  rfre  nhnenr  povr  In  si'ireU'de 
commerce  et  lU  la  nni'i(/ation  tie  la  tSxedc  en  ienips  de  f/uerrc  entre  des 
puiHsanvcs  ctranynes.    JJonnee  a  Stockholm  Ic  8  avril  1854. 

Nous,  Oscar,  par  la  grace  do  Dion  lloi  de  Suede  ot  de  Norwego,  des 
Gotlis  et  des  Vaiulales,  savnir,  faisons:  ija'ayant  recomiu  la  ueeessit*;, 
HI  vne  des  collisions  (]iii  menacent  d'eclater  eiitn',  des  puissances  mari- 
tiiiiesetrangeres,  queceux  denosfidMcs  sujets  qui  exercent  le  comnierco 
et  la  navigation  obscrvent  rigourensenuMit  les  obligations  et  precautions 
minises  pour  assurer  au  i)avillon  suedois  tons  les  droits  et  privileges  qui 
liii  reviennent  en  (pialite  <le  pavilion  neutre,  et  pour  eviter  egalement 
toiitce  (pii  pourrait  en  quehpu^  maniere  le  rendre  suspect  aux  puissan- 
ces belli  geran  tea  et  I'exposer  j\  <l('s  iiisultes,  nous  avons  Jiige  a  jiropos, 
(11  rapportant  ce  qui  a  et«'  statue  precrdenuuent  a  cet  egartl,  (I'ordonner 
que  les  regies  suivantes  devront  dorenavan  tetre  generalenient  observers : 
§  1.  l*our  etre  adinis  51  jouir  des  droits  et  privileges  revenant  an 
l)avillon  suedois  en  sa  qualite  do  nentre,  tout  batinient  suedois 
[579]  devra  etre  muni  des  documents  qui,  *d'apres  les  ordonnances  ex- 
istantes  ^sont  re(iuis  pour  constater  sa  nationalite,  et  ces  docu- 
ments devront  toujours  se  trouver  a  bord  du  batiment  pendant  ses 
voyages. 

«  2.  11  est  severemeiit  defendu  aux  capitainea  d'avoir  des  papiera  de 
bortl  et  des  connaissementa  doubles  ou  faux,  ainsi  que  de  hisser  pavil- 
ion (Hraiiger,  en  quebpie  occasion  ou  sons  (piehpu^  pretexte  que  ce  soit. 
§ .').  S'ilarrivait que,  i)endantlese)ourd'an  batiment  suedois  jYl'etranger, 
IVqnipage,  soit  par  desertion,  mort,  maladieou  autres  <!auses,  ae  trouvat 
liiiiiinue  au  point  de  n'etre  plus  sullisant  pour  la  manonivre  du  iiavire, 
It  qii'ainsi  des  matelots  etrangers  devront  etre  engages,  ils  devront  etre 
dioisis  de  i)ref«';rence  parmi  les  sujets  de  jMiissances  neutres  ;  mais  dans 
aiR'uii  cas  Ic   iiombre  des  sujets  des  puissances  belligerantes,  qui  ae 
tronveront  s\  bord  du  navire,  ne  devra  exceder  un  tiers  du  total  de 
I'lMluipage.    Tout  changement  de  cette  nature  dans  le  i)ersonnel  du  na- 
vire, avec  les  causes  qui  y  out  donne  lieu,  devra  etre  marque  i)ar  le 
I  capitaine  sur  le  r«)le  de  IV'quipage,  et  lafidelit*'"  de  cette  annotation  devra 
[(•tie  certitiee  par  le  consul  ou  vice-consul  suedois  comi)etent,  ou  bien,  eii 
cas  qn'il  ne  s'en  trouve  point  sur  les  lieux,  par  la  municipalite,  leiiotaire 
[imblic  ou  quelqu'autre  personne  de  la  meme  autorite,  suivantles  usages 

dea  pays  resi)ectifs. 

[580J       *§4:.  Les  batiments  suedois,  en  quality  de  neutrea,  pourront 

naviguer  librement  vers  les  ports  et  sur  les  c5tes  des  nations  en 

[{Tuerre;  toutefois  les  capitaines*  devront  s'abstenir  de  toute  tentative 

[tlVutrer  dans  nn  port  bloque,  des  qu'ils  out  6t6  formellement  prcveuus 

ido  IV'tat  de  ce  port  par  I'oHicier  qui  commande  le  blocus. 

Par  un  port  bloque,  on  en  tend  celui  qui  est  tellement  fermd  par  nn  ou 
|plHsic'urs  vaisseaux  de  guerre  ennemis  stationn6s  et  sufllsamment 
|l»iocbes  qu'on  ne  puiase  y  entrer  sans  danger  Evident. 

1  L'ordouuauce  royale  du  4  juiu  1866. 


St.-  ^Mm 


^llip 


138 


TUEATV    OF    WASHINGTON I'A1»EK8    ACCOMl'AXYINO 


4>l»' 


§  a.  ToiitcH  iiinn'liaiulisea,  mrmo  |»ro|nirt«''  <los  siijrtM  <1oh  imissniicM 
l»('IIif,'«''rinit«.'s  pouiroiit  vtva  lihn'iiu'iit  iiicik'cs  a  hord  des  batiiiiciits 
8iu''(U)i.s, en  leur  <iiialit«'Mle  iit'utn's,  a  la  ivseivi'  (I«*s  arti«'h'H  dc  coiitrc 
banO.e  (if  jfut'no.  l*ar  ooiitrebaiicle  tU*  •iut-ne  il  faiit  eiitt'iidrf  Ics  aiti- 
clo.s  siiivaiits  :  canons,  niortiers,  arnics  do  tontc  «'S|(e<;o,  boiiilHs, 
gioinulos,  bonlets,  pienes  a  fou,  nn'chcs,  jxuidro,  salprtro,  soulic 
cniiasses,  i>iqnt'S,  ccMntnrons,  {ribernes,  st'IIes  ct  bridt'S,  ainsi  (|uc  toiitrs 
labiications  [touvant  scrvir  diitM'ti'nuMit  a  rnsajn*'  dc  la  jjnt'rit',  «'ii  tx 
coptant  tontcfoin  la  quantit**  de  ccs  objcts  (pu  pent  Hia  lU'ccssaiii' 

pour  la  (U'fonse  du  naviiv  t*t  <U*rt'M|nlpayv. 
[;")81]        Pour  le  cas  on,  A  IVjranl  do  la  dofinition  dos  objots  *do  oontre 
bando  do  };uoito,  dos  ehanjjonionts  on  additions  d<'vraiont  otrc  in. 
trodnits  par  snito  do  i'onvontions  avoo  los  pnissanoos  «''tranyoios,  il  in 
sora  nltoiiouroniont  statue. 

§  0.  II  ost  intoi'dit  a  tout  oapitaino  snrdoisdo  so  laissoroniployor,  nvtr 
lo  l)atiinont  <|u'il  conduit,  a  transportor,  pouianonnodos  pnissaiujos  Id. 
li^orantos,dosdopoclios,dostionposondos  munitions  do  jiuorro,  sans yt'tiH 
contraint  par  uiui  foroo  roollo ;  auquel  cas  I'l  dovra  protestor  lormt'lli' 
mont  contro  un  tol  oniploi  de  la  force. 

§  7.  Lesbatinioiitsdes  puissancos  bollij;;(''rantosi>ourront  importer  dans 
los  ])ort8  suodois  et  en  oxjmrter  toutOs  donroos  ^:  niarchandises,  poiinii 
quo,  d'apros  lo  tarif  <?6noral  dos  douauos,  olios  soiont  porrnisos  a  l'iin|M)i 
tatiou  ou  a  Toxportation,  et  a  la  reserve  dos  articles  reputes  contrebande 
de  guerre. 

§  8.  II  est  dofendu  A  tout  sujet  suodois  d'armer  ou  dVquiper  dos  ii;i 
vires  ])our  otro  employes  en  course  contre  ancMino  dos  piussances  belli- 
f;orantos,  lours  sujets  et  i)ro[)riotos,  ou  do  prendre  part  a  IVWpiipemont  dw 
inivires  ayant  une  pareille  destination.  II  lui  ost  ogalemeut  dol'eiuln 
de  prendre  service  a  bord  de  corsaires  otrangors. 

§  0.  II  no  sera  permis  a  aucun  ciusaire  I'tranger  d'entrer  tlaiis 
|582]  un  port  suodois  et  de  sojouriu'r  sur  nos  rades.  Dos  *prisesiie 
pourront  non  plus  otro  introduites  dans  los  i>()rts  suodois,  autre 
mentque  dans  le  cas  de  detresso  constatoe.  II  ost  ogalomont  interditu 
nos  sujets  d'aclieter  dos  corsaires  etrangers  des  etlots  captures,  de  (jiul- 
que  espe(!e  que  ce  soit. 

§  10.  Lorsqu'un  capitaine,  faisant  voile  sans  escorte,  est  rencontri' en 
pleine  mer  par  quelque  vaisseau  de  guerre  do  Tune  <los  puissances  bil- 
ligerantos,  ayant  droit  de  controler  sos  papiors  de  bord,  il  ne  doit  ui  se 
refuser,  ni  chercher  a  sesoustrairo  a  cette  visito:  niais  il  esttenu  apio- 
duire  ses  papiers  loyalement  &  sans  detour,  ainsi  qu'a  snrveillor  quo,m 
depuis  qne  son  navire  ait  ete  hole  ni  pendant  la  visite,  aucun  des  ilo 
cuuients  coucernaut  le  navire  ou  sou  cUargemont  ne  soit  soustrait  ou  jeti' 
a  la  mer. 

§  11.  Lorsque  lesbatiments  inarcbands  font  voile  .sous  escorte  devais- 
seaux  de  guerre,  los  capitaiues  devront  se  rogler  sur  ce  qui  est  presciit 
par  I'ordonnance  royale  ilu  10  juin  1812. 

§  12.  Le  capitaine  qui  observe  scrupuleusement  tout  ce  qui  lui  est  present 
ci-dessu8  doit  jouir,  d'apres  les  traites  et  le  droit  des  gens,  d'une  navi- 
gatiou  libre  et  sans  gene ;  et  si,  nouobstaut,  il  est  moleste,  il  a  le  droit 
de  s'attendresX  I'appuileplusonrt'giquede  la  part  de  nos  miuistres 
[583]  et  consuls  st  I'etrauger,  dans  toutes  les  justes  reclamations  *qii'il 
pourra  faire  pour  obtenir  reparation  et  dodonimagemeut ;  put  | 
contre,  le  capitaine  qui  omet  et  neglige  <robserver  ce  qui  vient  de  lui 
etre  present  pour  sa  route,  no  devra  s'eu  prendre  qu'a  lui-meme  (b  I 


I'Alusi  que  plomb.    Ordouuance  royale  du  13  sept.  1855, 


COrXTER    CASE    OF    TMK    UMTKM    STATES. 


139 


ai'HjM'rcr  iiotre  apiuii  ft  protection. 

i;5.  Dans  Umms  (|iriiu  naviiv  siu'mIoIh  est  saisi,  le  capitaiiio  doit  re- 

inettiv  an  consul  ou  vice  ronsnl  sm'-dois,  s'il  sVn  troiivc  dans  It*  port  (»ii 

I  soli  bAtiinent  est  simumm' — uiais,  a  son  d«''fant,  an  consnl  on  viceconsnl 

siit'tloi'**  le  i)lns  voisin — nn  rapport  lldMe.  et  dninent  certilie  «les  cireon- 

I  stiiiKTS  <le  eetto  prise,  ave«"  tons  ses  di'tails. 

Maiiilons  et  ordoinions  a  tons  eenx  a  <|ni  il  appartieiidra  de  se  eon- 
I'oiiiier  exaeteinent  a  vv  qne  «lessns.     I'^n  Ibi  de  «pioi  nous  avons  sij,'ii«'  la 
pn'seiite  de  notre  main  I't  yavons  taitapjmser  iiotre  se»*:'u  royal. 
Doune  an  chateau  de  Stockbohn,  le  8  avril  IS.ll, 

0«CAi;.     [L.  s.] 
J.  F.  FAHiiyi:us. 

"(Stj  *Commnnicatton  offhlillc.  htsrn'e  thins  Iv  jouninl  '■'Post-  och  Inrihes 

Tiilniutjary''''  Ic  '21  jiiin  lsr>(i. 

Snr  rinvitation  qni  Ini  a  etc  adressee  sa  ^Majeste  le  lioi,  sons  la  date 

(111  IIJ  conrant,  par  son  niinistre  des  atl'aires  etran;;eres,  a  fait  declarer 

I  (|ii(' sa  ^[ajeste  a  adlien- anx  principes  dn  tlroit  iiiaritiaie  en  temps  de 

L'liem'  contunns  dans  la  dt'-claration  qneles  puissances  (pii  ont  pris  part 

aiix  ii(''<;(K;iations  di  i.i  paix  out  signee  a  Paris  lu  10  .»vril  dernier,  et 

jdiiinvs  laqnelle — 

1".  La  course  est  et  deineure  abolie  ; 

-'".  Le  pavilion  ncntre  convre  la  marchandise  ennomie,  a  I'exceptiou 
I  (U'  la  contrebande  de  guerre  ; 

.)".  La  marcliamlise  nentre,  a  I'exceptiou  do  la  contrebande  de  guerre, 
iiVst  pas  saisissable  sons  pavilion  enuemi ; 

i". Los  blocus, pour etre  obligatoires,  doivent  ("tre  etlectifs — !-'est  a  dire, 
iiiaiiitcMns  par  une  force  suflisaute  pour  iuterdire  rcellemeut  Faeces  du 
littoral  de  Tenemi. 


[•J.S5]   *Orflonnancc  flu  Jio!  conecrnant  V inter prrtation  «h-  hi  i ."»  de  Fonlon- 

nanec  roi/ale  du  S  arfil  1S.14,  rclativenient  n  ve  ijui  ihtit  itre  »)h.scrfv^ 

jmu'la  siireU-  du  lommercc  et  de  la  mirif/dfion  de  Id   ISuede,  en   temps  de 

(juerre  entre  den  itui.ss({nce.s  maritime^  etrauyet'cs,  etc.     Don  nee  an  chateau 

(k  Stockliohn  le  -J'Jjuillet  1870. 

Xoiis,  Charles,  par  la  grace  de  Dien  Koi  de  Snede  et  de  Norwege,  des 
[Gotlis  et  des  Vaudales,  savoir,  faisons:  que  la  §  ">  de  r<»rdonnan»*e 
Irovale  dn  8  avril  18.54,  relative  jY  ce  qui  doit  T'tre  observe  pour  la  snrete 
[(111  commerce  et  de  la  navigation  de  la  Snede,  en  temps  dc  guerre  entre 
pies  puissances  nniritimes  etrangeres,  etc.,  ayant«lonn«''  lieuadittV-rentes 
jiiiterpn'tations,  lums  avons  .juge  bon  et  utile  de  dt-clarer  (pie  la  restric- 
jtion  apportee  par  la  dite  §,  an  droit  de  transporter  <lans  des  batinu'uts 
Isiit'dois  des  objets  de  contrebande  de  guerre,  ne  s'appliqne  i)as  an  cas 
loii  des  objets  de  cette  categoric,  qui  n'ap[>artieunent  pas  on  qui  ne  sont 
pis  destines  aux  puissances  belligerantes,  ou  a  lenrs  su jets,  sont  trans- 
Iportt's  daus  des  batiments  sueduis  entre  les  ports  des  puissjuices 
jneutres. 

Mamlons  et  ordonuons  ;Y  tons  ceux  jY  qui  il  appartieiulra  de  se  con- 
Iforiner  exactement  jY  ce  que  dessus.  En  foi  de  qnoi  nous  avons  sigiui 
pa  preseute  de  notre  main  et  y  avons  fait  apposer  notre  sceau  royal. 

Bouue  au  chateau  de  Stockholm,  le  29  juillet  1870. 

(JUAKLES.    [L.  s.] 
Alex.  Adleeckeutz. 


; :  \'»-k 


140 


TKEATV   OF   WASHINGTON — PArERS   ACCOMPANYING 


'■:4.»' 


[580] 


hi  .. 


•No.  XII.  — BRAZIL. 

[Supplouieutal.] 
DIVElTS  NEUTRALITY  CIRCI'LARS. 


For  English  translatiou  see  Uuitod  States  Claims,  vol.  7,  p.  107. 

No.  ],of  ]8Mav,  IS.U. 
No.  L\of  .iJKliuus  lS,-)0. 
No.  a,  of  12  OctoluT,  isr>9. 
No.  4,  of  1  Aiijjjust,  lS(n. 
No.  .J,  of  2.'i  .luiM',  1S(J3. 
No.  (>,  of  17  Deci'inlier,  ISOi. 
No.  7,  of  27  Anjriist,  1S70. 
No.  S,  of  14  OctolM'V,  1.S70. 
No.  0,  of  -JO  (»<-t()l«'r,  l.S7(K 

No.  10,  of  lueiuoraiiduiu  of  questious  betwoeu  Brazil,  Germany,  aiid 
France. 


[-,87] 


*No.  1. 


1»   SEcrAo. — N. — CiRrriAT^. — Rio  dk  Janeiro. —Minij^tekio  de< 

NE\.;0CIOti    J'2sTUA-N(jiElUUS,  EM  18  DE  3IaIO  I>E  1.'V>4. 

Ile>i.  e  V.km.  Sr,  T(Miho  a  honra  do  renietter  a  V.  Ex.  na  copia  Junta. 
o  aviso  (jiu'  roin  a  data  <lo  15  do  corronte  ni«'/,  foi  por  esfe  ndiiisteriofS  I 
pedido  aosda  jastioa,  niaiinliae  jj;ucrra,  connnunicando-lhes  asrcsolmri 
(pio  o  j>o\orno  do  sua  niaf^i.stad*^  o  iinporador  Jtd>;oii  ilever  ai?(iiit.ir| 
durantea  jrnerra  quo  infeliznionto  existe  declarada  entre  a  GraBreUJiia.; 
e  a  Franra  ]>«)r  laina  parte,  c  si  Russia  peh  outra. 

Estas  re.'ioliicru's  sao  as  scyuintt's: 

1".  <,)iie  neidiiua  corsario  coin  a  bandeira  «u^  qnalqner  das  potcmi:i< 
bcllijjcrantcs  podciii  scr  anuado,  on  approvisionado  on  adinittido  cou 
8uas  prcsas  nos  pnrtos  do  iinpcrio. 

2".  Que  OS  suUii  MS  brasil«Mios  nao podcrao  tomar  parte  cm  armamciiM 
do  corsarios  on  oin  (|uacs(iucr  outros  actos  oppostos  ao.s  deven.*sdc  uiu3| 
stri<*ta  neutral idatlc. 

As  rcs<»lu«;r»es  que  fieao  moncionadas  sAo  em  parte  fundada.s  nodiici;" 
iutoriiactoual  (pie  rej^nla  as  obrijuacoes  <los  neutros  em  tcnq»o  do  ui?«t!:'  j 
e  cm  parte   na  lejiisiaeao  do  pal/,  c  Ibrao  aconselhadas  jwdo  dcver.  <]* 
toiu  <»  K>»v*'rno  (b<  sua  nmjjrislade  o  inqteradorde  attendcr  aos  inti-rci^"^ 
do  comiiu-rcio  ilos  suliditos  brasilciros,  c  «le  obscivar  na  prcscnic  yu(-m| 

uiiia  stricta  neutrididade. 
['>SS]       r'oin  fudo  ;i   e\<'<'U(;i"io  das  niodidas  quo  deixo  refer" idas  iifuM 
iseiita   i\v    diriicuIda<U.'S  c  couq»lica<;ocs,  c  c  isto  o      H'  cuuiitrf| 
acantelar. 

Fare^'c me  aeertado  <pie,  antes  do  V.  Ex.  mandar  proc^'dpi-  a  rcs|>t*iirt 
do  qualtpuM- na\  io  que  c  steja  jios  nossos  [)ortos,  por  s«  dizer  que  esij 
no  caso  da  rcso!ui;a  )  do  j:fovorno,  (pie,  dtvhMinina  (pie  nenhitin  corsarit 
com  bandeira  do  (piabpier  das  poteueias  Uellifjeraiites  pitssa  scr  armnti". 
o'.;  approvi.sionatlo  ou  admittido  coin  as  suas  prcsas  detttro  '!.»s  portus 
do  wnperio,  iu(»curc  v«m ificar  a  circuuistancia  de  quo  o  uuvio  c  corsari". 
oil  scja  a  vista  dos  paj)els  do  bordo  ou  por  uctos  uotorios  de  corso,  'i''" 
ja  tcuba  praticado. 

Estas  dili^ciic'as  dcverac"*  ser  encarrcgadas  aos  auditores  de  mariulit! 


I  ,|os  lufraros  0 

jsi'i's  snbstiti 

ililinonciiis  s( 

lainiiiiiH'tito  fl 

A  eiitrada 

jvt'ihula;  mas 

l,|iu' V.  Ex.  o; 

Todas  as  ii 

uii'  vc'du/ida 

j  iiiiijcstado  o 

toiilio  tain 

iiida<4;i 

f.iSlH    i)<»jsiv 

da  dn 

|diss(M'(pic  p'..' 

rrocendc.r 

jalcaldade  e 

ini'didas  que 

(■it'di'  disiutc 

I  auiizrtdo. 

A  circumsi 
i  jjoverno  do  s 
jpaiv^'ao  incoi 
I'ara  (pic  o 
|]K»ssao  cntrai 
Jd.i  a  niais 
ji'\l»Ii(|iie  a:s  i 
l*rc\iile(;o  i 
jiiiiiilia  perfei 


|l'  Secc.To.- 
Ne( 


COUNTER  CASE  OB'  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


141 


I uos hiKf'i't'''' ^'"  M"**  OS  houver,  e  aos  rcspectivoa  jnizos  de  diroito  on 
{si;!>«  substitutos,  aoiide  iifio  lionver  auditores  de  iiiiiriiiiia,  e  «t'  iiclsis 
(lilipencias  St?  i>rovar  <|ne  o  navio  «'•  corsaii;?,  tU'veia  iiiiiH*<lir-.se  o  sen 
[aiiiiiiinento  on  approvisionamento  o  mandar  so  siUiir  do  y.in'n,. 

A  eiitradii  nos  iiossos  jun'tos  <le  eor.sario.s  com  prcsas*''  expressanuMito 
jvedada;  nuis  se  olla  se  veiiHcar  por  ali^iim  caso  de  lorya  maior,  ciuiipie 
(jiic  V.  Kx.  OS  ujaiide  iinaH'diatarneute  sahir  do  porto. 

Todas  as  inda;ifa<'r)tvs  que  V.  Kv.,  mandar  ta/.cr  para  este  fiiii  devcrad 
[sir  ri'duzidas  a  escripto,  e  transmitidas  depois  ao  j^ovoriio  do  sua 
[miiji'stade  o  imju'rador. 

teulio  tainbcm  por  muito  convoiiientc  que  V.  Ex.,  no  caso  de  qnacsqncr 

iiidajisK^'oi's  c  mcdidas  (pie   tomar,   proceda,   tanto  qnanto    for 

[.iStd    }><»*sivel.  de  accordo  e  com  conheci*ment()dos  a<;entes  con.sulares 

da  Cira  Ijretanlia  e  da  Fraii<;a,  la<»  bom  como  da  nayao  a  <|ne  se 

I (lissor (jue  portence  o  navio,  contra  o  qind  houver  snspcitas  de  scr  c(  '  sari'\ 

I'roct'ude.ido  assim,o  {••overiio  de  sua  majt''.sta«le  o  imp<'rador  mostrara 

jalcaldade  e  boa  fe,  com  <pie  deseja  concdiar  a  ri<;orosa  execut;;!;)  das 

iiK'tlidas  que  adopton  com  os  meios<leevitardi(1iculdades,  e  toda  a  espe- 

[(itMlc  disintelligeiicia  com  os  jjoveriios  coai  qnem  conservu  relayoes  do 

j  auiizade. 

A  circnmspec^iio  e  ])rndencia  de  V.  Ex.  afiai  cao  qae  as  medidas  do 
hovenio  de  .sini  majj^estade  o  imperador  seiao  executadas  sem  que  ap- 
h,iuv(;ru)  incouvenientes  ho  porto  dessa  «'api*^al. 

hu'ii  q\w  o  nesmo  aconteca  nos  outros  portos  da  proviiu-ia  aonde 
htossao  entrar  eml>arca(;ocs  estraiii^eiros,  (';  indispensavel  ipu"!  V,  ICx.  ex- 
b'l  .1  a  mais  activa  vij^ilant^ia  sobre  as  respect iva.s  aiitoridades,  e  !hes 
[i'Xi>Iiqiie  us  instrnciMlcs  dt)  ^overno  de  sua  maj^estade  o  imi)era(b)r. 

l*re\)ile(;o  ine  da  occasiao  para  renovar  a  V.  Ex.  as  seyiiraucas  da 
jiuiiiha  perfeita  estima  e  distiiutta  coiisideracao. 

ANTONIO  PAl'LINO  [.IMPO  DE  AliUEU, 
A.  iS.  Ex.  o  tSr.  i'lTaulfitte  da  Vrorincia  de.     .    , 


>,,if 


■P 


No.  2. 
|l'  SEcrlo. — X. — CiRruL  VR. — llni    dh    JwrjKo. — ^^r^*lSTr•u^IO  do!^ 

NkGOCIOS   ErfrUANGF.IUOS,  em   .{(►    JlLlIO   DE    183!). 

Tli,m.  eExm.Si?.  :  Esfs'i  no  coidiecimento  de  V.  K.(pie  o^roverno 
[plOj    imperial,   de   accunb)   c«»m   os   iiivaria\"«'is    priii*cipios    (b?   sua 
politica  externa,  e  bem  eonsultando  os  iiiteresses  do  imperio,  re- 
jy"I\.'".i  inaiit<M'-se  ni'utra  na  jju»'rra  <|ue  iiifebznieute  soUreveiu  eiitre 
jji  <'niilt'd<4i( -ao  Avji<'iitina  ea  proviiicia  de  Ibn-nos-Ayres. 

A  neutrabdij'lo  do  IJrasil  nessa  ciniteiubi  (pu-  o  jiovcMiio  de  su  i  nui- 
jpstiHle  cordialmente  «U'plora,  nao  tern  «Mitras  limita<^'r»('s  senao  as  que 
[txim'ssao  OS  factos  vj;;entes,  em  rebnjuo  ao  cstado  oriental  do  Uruguay, 
h  IS  (jue  iiiqdicitamente  se  coiitem  no  art.  !"•  d(»  fratado  de  7  de  ^I»r«;o  de 
|3'^">ti,  celebrado  entre  o  imperio  e  a  Coui'ederayao  Ar}.MMitina. 

'■^na  luajjestade  o  imperador  houve  pour  bem  que  se  recommendasse 
\fi  V.  Kx.  ii  stricta  observancia  da<pndles  priucijiios.  sejjundo  os  quaes  os 
Kulxlitos  bra.siU'iros  se  <levem  abster  de  t«»da  participa(;ao  ou  auxiiioem 
favor  dc  (jualquer  dos  dons  beliiy;erantes. 

A  t'xportaeao  de  artijiios  bellicos  dos  pottos  do  imperio  para  os  de 
I'lit'iios  Avres  e  abs(dntamcs:te  proliibjda,  ou  se  preteuda  lazer  debaixo 
lit  l)aiHleira  brusileira  ou  de  outiu  nayao.    O  mesmo  comniercio  de  coa- 


■"-' 

M 

B'-^i 

w'#ii 

PIP^PM 

•^  ■'?! 

'  ■ '  ■-■'■  ^S 

■'*^'^^ 

jH 

*'"  *^K 

'91 

\'    '  "  ^ffiP   '^iM 

I  'i'   i-  ■"  U^ 

tm 

IM 

1 

W' 


142 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 


r  I 


•il 


trabando  de  guerra  (leve  ser  vedado  aos  navios  brasileiros,  aiiida  qnp 
se  dcstiiiem  aos  portos  da  Confedeia^'fio  Argentina. 

Nao  6  provavel  <iue  ontro  caso  de  viola<;rio  do  neiitralidade,  aiiidii 
aliMM  do  que  acinia  prevejo  occoira  nessa  provincia,  seni  embargo  poiVni. 
hei  de  breveniente  expedir  a  V.  Ex.  instrnceoes  nuiis  explicitas.  En. 
tretanto  V.  Ex.  se  regulara,  em  (juahjuer  oecurreneia  extraordinaiia. 

pelos  princi|)ios  (luo  se  expre.ssao  no  pre.sente  aviso. 
[591]        *Teidio  a  honra  <le  renovar  a  V.  Ex.  os  protestos  da  minba  perfeita 
estima  e  distincta  consideracao. 

JOSTt!  iMAItlA  DA  SILVA  PAKAXIIOS, 
A.  aS'.  Ux.  o  *SV.  Fresidenfe  da  J'rorincia  de.     .    .    . 


No.  3. 


1"'  SEoglo. — X — Circular. — Kio    de    Janeiro, — Ministerio    do;. 

JS^EGOCIOS  ESTRA.NGEIROt^.  EM   12  ])E  OUXrURO  DE  18.">5). 

Ielm.  E  ExM.  Sr.  :  O  governo  im[»crial  teve  conliecimento  por  uiiia 
iiota  que  Ibe  dirigiu  a  legaeao  argentina  nestaeorte  de(]ue  o  governo  de 
Buenos-Ayres  mandara  con)i)rar  e  armar  em  Inghiterra  dons  va|)ori's 
para  sereni  empregados  na  guerra  em  ipie  esta  emi)euba(b)  eom  a  Con 
federaeao  Argentina. 

S(5  beni  nfio  po.ssa  o  governo  imperial,  no  caso  de  sabirem  dos  portns 
daGra  I>retanbaa<|nebes  vapores  e  de  tocarem  apenas  nos  do  imperii, 
em  transito  ]>ara  lUienos-Ayro.s,  mancbir  proeeder  a  sua  (U'tenrao,  coiiim 
foi  por  aqueUa  legaeao  solieitacb),  e  eonfornjo  aos  prinei]>ios  (b;  neiitriili 
dade  que  se  tern  imposto  o  governo  imjxMial  na(iuella  guerra,  impiMlii 
(|ue  recebilo  armamento,  tripobieao,  e  menos  ainda  que  tramsportem  oli 
jeetos  beUieos  i)ara  o  porto  de  iJuenos-Ayres. 

Ketiro-me  para  meliior  governo  <b'  V.  ll\.  a  circular  que  foi-lbe  oxpi' 
dida  por  este  mini.sterioem  '.Mi  (\o  Jullio  ultimo. 

Keitero  a  V.  Ex.  as  seguran<;as  da  minba  perfeita  estima  e  dislintt;i 
consideracao. 

[592]  *  JOAO  LUIS  VTEIUA  C ANS ANSA( )  DE  SIXIMBlT, 

A.  «S'.  Ex.  0  ISr.  PrcHidentc  da  I'rovincia  de.    .    .    . 


1  ) 


Xo.  4. 

I''     SECOAO.— N.-— (.^IRCIXAR.— UlO     DE     JANEIRO.—MiNISTERIO    D"^^] 
XECiOClOS  E.STRANEIROS,  EM   1  DE  A(;OSTO  DE  1S()1. 

Tllm.  E  Exm.  Sr.  :  Aluta  (jue  rom pen  outre  o  governo  federal  <li' 
Estados-Unidos  Xorte-Americanos,  e  alguns  blesses  estados  <pie  deciiira  I 
rao  (!onstituir-se  em  conl'edt^raoao  separada,  pode  trazer  ao  noMs<t  ]'"'' 
quostoos,  para  cuja  soliujao  reU'va  que  V.  Ex.  esteja  prevenido,  e  ]»iir 
este  niotivo  recebi  ordem  de  sua  nmgestade  o  imperador  para  deciaiar 
a  V.  VjK.  (]ue  o  governo  imperial  julga  devor  manterse  ini  nnus  striata 
neutralidado  durante  a  guerra,  em  <pu^  ini'eli/mente  se  acbao  aqnellts 
estados,  e  para  (\iw  esta  noutralida<le  seja  guaidada  <jumpro  qui' •« 
ol)servem  as  determiimcoes  soguintes. 

Os  estados  conl'ederaclos  nao  tern  existencia  reconbecida,  mas,  bavenilo 


COUNTER   CASE    OF   THE    UNITED    STATES. 


143 


:''  & 


(lUistitaido  de  fiicto  uiii  gfoverno  distincto,  nao  podo  o  govovno  imperial 
(oiisideiar  conio  fictos  <le  i)ii"ataiia  os  sens  arinamciitos  iiavaes,  nem 
ivciisar  ilK's,  com  as  uecessarias  retstricrot's,  o  caractcr  dc  belligerantes 
(liicassimtirao. 

Os  snlxlitos  brasiloiros  devem  nesta  conform  idado  abstor-se  do  tod  a 

l);irtifipi>«;i"n>  o  aiixilio  cm  favor  <lo  um  dos  bf'lli^crantc.s,  e  nao  podcrao 

tomar  i»art('  cm  qiiaosiiaor  actos,  quo  possao  sor  oonsidorados  como 

[■)!i;}]    Iiostis  a  uma  *das  duaspartos,  ocontrarios  aos  dovero?;  da  noutrali- 

dado. 

A  cxjjortacao  de  artijcros  bollicos  dos  portos  do  imporio  para  oa  novos 

istados  confodoiados  fica  absolntamonto  proliibida,  on  so  protonda  fazel- 

adchuixo  da  ban(U'ira  brasilcira,  on  da  do  ontra  iuu;ao. 

0  mesmo  comiiicrcio  do  contra bando  <lo  gnerra  dovo  sor  vodado  aos 
iiavios  brasiloiras  ainda  qno  so  dostinom  aos  portos  snjoitos  as  govorno 
(la  riiiao  Nort<'-Anicricana. 

Xciilnim  iiavio  com  bandoira  do  nm  dos  boUigorantos,  c  quo  ostoja 
I  cinitrc^'iitio  ncsta  jiucrra  on  a  olla  so  destine,  podera  sor  approvisionado, 
|is(|iiipiulo  on  armailo  nos  portos  do  imporio,  nao  so  comproliondondo 
liifstii  i)roliibicao  o  fornocimcnto  do  vitnalbas  o  provisoes  navaos  indis- 
Jlit'iisaveis  a  continnacrio  da  viafiom. 

Nfio  sera  |H'rmittidu  a  navio  al>>nm  de  jjuorra  on  corsario  ontrar  e  por- 
|iiiiiiR'cer  com  prosas  nos  Jiossos  portos  on  babias  nniis  do  24  lu)ras,  salvo 
(icaso  do  arribada  Ibicada,  e  por  lUMdinm  modo  Ibes  sera  permittido 
[(iispor  das  mesmas  prcsas  on  de  objectos  <lollas  prf>voniontos. 

Na  e.\ecncao<b'sras  modi(his,o  na  solncao  (bis  (|U(^stoes  «inooecorrorem, 

|V,  Kx.  se  yiiiarii  pidos  principios  «b»  dircito  intcrnaoi(nnd,  tondo  em  con- 

siili'iarao  as  instrnccoes  cxpcdidas  por  esto  ministorio  em  18  (b'  Maiodo 

|lvi,  jiiianhulo  o  pcnsamento  (hi  (Mrcnlar  da  .'JO  do  .Inllio  do  IS.")!),  com 

relacao  aos  Kstados-rin(U)s  em  bita  com  os  esta(b)sconfodora<los,  e 

[lilt]   {'ommiujicara  ao  ♦•••ovorno  imi)erial   qnaosqnor  ibllicnbhidos  ou 

occnri'cncias  oxtraordinarias  (pn>  exijao  novas  instrnccoes. 

I't'itero  a  V.  K\.  as  expressoes  ibi  minba  ostima  e  distincta  confide- 

linrai). 

JJEXVEXUTO  AlKUTSTO  DE  ^rAGALllAES  TAQUES, ' 

A.  iS.  J'Jd'.  o  <!nV.  rrcHidtntc  da  Vrocincia  de     .    ,    .    , 


i\ 


K  i 


li'.t' 


No.  .J. 

SKCrAO, — y.— rinCl'LAK.— 1I[0  DE  JANETTJO.— ^flNTSTEniO  BOH  XE- 
(iOClOS    EsTI{A.N(iEIK<).S  KM  L'.)  DE  J  I'MIO  DE  JS(j;{. 

/(.v/r/fcrocs  rcguUtiido  a  ncutniJidadc  do  lirasiJ  na  lufa  dos  L\sf((dofi-Unido8 

da  America  do  yorte. 

b.i.M.  E  Kx>i.  Si:.  :  <<onviiMb)  dar  maior  desenv(dvimento  a  circnbir 
listc  minisicrio  do  1"  (b*  Ajjosto  (U-  l.SIJl,  qno  ostabob'con  os  princi|tios 
^•'.^iiladoros  da  nontrabda(b'  quo  o  jjovorno  imperial  rosolvou  assnmir 
IHcsencii  da  lata  <los  lvstados-lIni«l(»s  <la  America  do  Norte,  ja  para 
[xitlicar  alj^niis  d«'ssos  principios,  ja  para  indicar  om  {feral  os  casos  em 
Vic  so  dcve  jnljr>ar  viohnla  a  nen(ralidad(^  o  os  meios  tie  a.  fa/or  en'ectiva  ; 
^laiitla  sua  nnijicstado  o  imperaibn-  dedarar  a  V.  K\.  o  seyninto,  jjara 
V'li  coidiecimento  e  devida  execnciio. 

iVlas  i)alavras  "salvo  o  caso  do  arribada  foryadu''  inencionadas  na 
t'tiTida  circnlar,  dovo  tandiom  ontondorse: 


.*"  i  f 


.A' 


fi 


r 


i 


144  TREATY   OF    WASHINGTON PAPERS    ACCOMPANYING 

Que  o  navio  niio  sep/i  obrifjado  a  saliir  do  porto  dontro  do  prazo 

[595]    de  L'4  hoi  jus,  se  iiao  houver  podido  etfectuar  •os  concertos  iiulis 

pensavcispaia  <pie  possa  expor-se  ao  mar  seiu  risco  de  perdersi', 

Se  i;;nal  risco  se  der  por  causa  do  iiiao  tempo. 

Se  tiiialmente  for  acossado  pelo  inimiijo. 

Nestas  hypotheses  fi«;a  ao  arhitrio  do  jjoverno  na  corte  e  dos  presidentcs 
lias  proviiicias  determiiiar,  a  vista  das  circumstaucias,  o  tempo  deutio  do 
qual  devera  o  navio  sahir. 

Os  corsarios,  aiiida  que  iifio  condnzao  presas,  nao  serao  admittiik 
iios  portos  do  imperio  por  mais  do  24  horas,  salvo  o  caso  de  arribada 
for^'ada. 

As  presas  de  quo  trata  a  circular  do  1"  de  Ajjosto  sao  os  iiavins 
apresados  pelos  bellijjerautes  ou  i)eIos  corsarins,  de  modo  que  a  pi'iia 
imposta  aos  que  couduzerem  presas  uao  e  applicavel  aos  qite  tat)  so- 
iiieiite  trouxerem  objectos  proveiiientes  <leHas,  iiao  podendo,  {(orciii, 
em  caso  a1};um,  disimr  dos  mesmos  objectos  assim  ciuiio  das  presas. 

De  coiitbrmidade  com  a  circnhir  citada,  os  uavios  belHy^eraiites  m 
podem  receber  uos  portos  do  imperio  seiiai)  as  vitualhas  e  provisrus 
iiax'aes  de  que  absobitameute  care^-ao,  e  fazer  os  concertos  necessaiius 
l>ara  a  contimta^'do  da  viagem, 

Esta  disposi<;ao  presuppoe  que  o  navio  vai  com  destino  para  uni  porto 
quahpier,  e  que  so  de  passagem  e  por  uecessidadc  demanda  urn  poitodo 
imperio. 

A  presnpposi(;ao  da  circular  nao  se  verificari'i,  porem,  se  nm  inpsnio 
navio  ]>rocurar  o  porto  amiudadas  vezes,  ou  se,  lUquiis  de  tti  it 
[50G]    frescado  em  uni  porto,  entrar  *em  outio  U>y;o  depois,  pretextamlo 
o  mesmo  tino,  salvo  os  (!asos  prova<los  de  toica  maior. 

A  frecpiencia,  pois,  sem  motivo  sutUcicutemeiite  justilicado,  deve  an 
tori/ar  a  susi»eita  de  «pie  o  navio  uao  esta  realmente  em  viajjein,  mas 
percorre  os  mares  vizinhos  do  imperio  para  apresar  navios  inimi<;os. 

O  asylo  e  socorros  <iue  em  tal  caso  se  prcste  a  um  dos  belligeraiitt;!| 
podera  ser  qualiticado  como  auxilio  ou  favor  prestado  contra  o  outiut;] 
portanto  como  cjuelra  da  neutralidade  declarada. 

Convem  conseguintemente  que  um  navio,  «iue Ja  unia  vez  tenha  entrailo 
ern  um  dos  nossos  ijortos,  na;)  seja  recel)i(lo  no  mesmo  porto  ou  em  oiitio, 
pouco  dei)()is  <lc  liaver  entiado  no  primeiro,  para  recelier  vitualhas.  pitv  I 
visot's  navaes,  e  fazer  concertos,  salvo  o  caso  devidamcnte  iJi-ovadodf 
forca  maior,  senao  depois  de  um  i)razo  razoavel  que  facac-rer(|ue  oitavin 
ja  se  tinha  retirado  das  costas  do  imperio,  e  a  ellas  regressou  depois  del 
ter  concluido  a  viagem  a  (pie  se  destinava. 

Por  motivos  idenlicos  aos  (jue  Hcao  exixistos,  nao  sera  permittjtl<)iii'>| 
l>ortos  do  imperio  (pie  os  navios  belligeiantes  recebilo  generos  viiidi 
directamente  para  elles  em  naxios  de  (piahpier  iiat-.l  » :  o  que  signiticaiiil 
que  nao  procuiao  OS  belligerantes  OS  nossos  portos  (U*  passagem,  o  iwi'l 
uecessidadc  imprevista,  mas  com  o  propositi)  de  permanecer  na  pnixi 
niidade  das  costas  do  imperio,  tomando  pur  isst)  <lo  antemfit)  as] 
[ol)7J  cautelas  pre(!isas  para  se  fornecerein  dos  meios  de  continuar  *eiii 
suasemprezas.  A  tolerancia  de  um  semelhante  abuso  equivali'iiil 
a  permittir  (pie  os  portos  do  imperio  servissem  aos  belligerantes  dt| 
base  de  oi)era(;("»es. 

Ficando  assim  expli(!ado8  os  i)rincipio3  da  cii'.dar  do  l"  de  Ajrostol 
de  1801,  cumpre  (pie  nos  portos,  bahias  e  am.'Oi-adouros  de  imperio  !i(| 
exija  dos  belligerantes  a  tlel  obsju'vancia  das  seguintes  condiydes. 

1".  O.t  navios  de  guerra  admittidos  em  um  ancorailouro  ou  porto  del 
verao  permanecer  na  trauquillidade  a  mais  jierfeita,  e  na  mais  couijileta 


COUNTER   CASE   OF    THE   UNITED    STATES. 


145 


V 


•,a7.  com  todos  os  iiavios  quo  ahi  cstivercin,  aiiida  os  do  gnorra,  on  ar- 
iiiiidos  cm  giM'ini,  (U)  s<Mi  iiiiinigo. 

L'".  Nfio  podcrfni  aii^fiiientar  a  sua  triiiolarao,  enntractaiulo  inariii- 
hciros  <li'  (iiial(|iu'r  nanlorjiU'  ><*ja,  iiu-lusivt'  coiiipati'iotas  s(mis. 

,;".  Nao  podciao  i;^ialiiieMte  aiigiiu'iitar  o  iiiniicro  o  o  caliluo  do  sua 
iitilliaiia,  nciii  por  qnalijiu-r  imulu  apcrfoiroal-a,  oom[)iar  ou  oiubar- 
iiir  iiiiiias  portatois,  o  miniii-ocs  de  giu'ira. 

r.  Xao  [»iid(*r;lo  p«ir  sc  de  emboscada  iins  jwrtos  on  ancoradiuu'os,  ou 
)i;is  illias  o  (-alios  dos  ina^f^s  tfiiitoriaos  do  iniporio,  a  osproita  (lo  navios 
;iiiiiiiui>s  qiw  ('Mtre?ii  on  sjiiao:  iicin  iiu'siuo  pioouiar  iiifoiniarni's  a  rcs- 
|i('it()  (hupu'lh'!^  fpie  sao  esiK-rados  ou  ijue  dovoni  sahir  ;  c  iieni  linahnonto, 
tlizerst'  a  vola  para   coirer  sobie   uni  navio  iniinigo  avistado  ou  sig- 

ualado. 
"I'.iSJ       'f.  Nao  podorfio  faz«T-so  a  vola  inuuodlatonionto  *dopois  de  um 
navio  p<'rtoiic«-iite  a  unia  iiarao  ininiiga  ou  noutra. 

Sciido  a  vai»or  ou  do  vola  tanto  o  navio  (pn*  sahir  oomo  aquollo  (pio 
ticiir,  nu'diara  ontn*  a  saliida  do  uni,  o  di*  «tutro  o  prazo  de  -4  horas. 
Si',  iiorciii,  (or  de  vela  o  ipu*  s;diir,  v  a  vapt)r  o  navio  ([uo  licar,  nao  po- 
(Iciii  csto  saliir   senao  Tl!  Iioras  diqiois. 

(I".  Dnranto  a  sua  ostada  no  porto,  nao  podi'rfia  os  ItL'llis'orantos  ein- 
pi'i'uiw  iM'Ui  a  foK-a.  noni  a  astncia  jiaia  icliavor  jirosas  tVitas  aos  sous 
I  iiiicidadaos  fpic  se  aeliarom  no  niesnio  asyK>,  ou  para  lil)ortar  [irisionoiros 
lie  sua  na<;ao. 

7".  Nao  podorilo  procjMlor  no  i»ort<»  noutro,  iumu  a  vonda,  noni  ao  ro'^- 
:;itt' (las  prosas  tV'itas  ao  sen  innni;.">,  antes  (juo  a  validado  da  prcsa 
HJii  rocoidn'cida  p«-los  trilninaes  competontos. 

iMca  suI)cntcndido  quo  as  ijjfrarrocs  de  oada  nam  dostas  soto  ooiidi- 
;ri!'s  constituinlo  otn»s  taritos  caMJs  de  viola*;;!  >  da  ncutralidade  do  iui- 
iti'iio.  sujcitando  os  int'nu-toivs  as  penas  <pie  Ihes  forein  iiM[)ostas, 

K  jtara  fa/.or  etKoetiva  anoutnilida<le,  eoliibindoe  reprimindoos  abuses 
luc  sc  ])ractieareni,  dovorfio  s<t  eni[»regados  os  seguintes  nieios. 

r\  Veriliear  pievianionte  a  eoneossa)  do  asylo,  o  oaraotor  do  navio, 
'•  siMis  preeeilcntcs  ofn  outros  portos  do  iinperio,  para  depois  oo  icedcr 
•m  iicirai-  a  cnfrada  c  a  poruiaiieneia,  escassear  o  I'avor,  ou  redohrar  de 

vigilanoia. 
W]       *ii".  ]\Jaroar  anoonnlor.ro  onde  os  navios  estojilo  debaixo  das 
vistas  innnodiata.sdaiMjlieia,  longe  de  paragons  e  oircunistancias 
siispcitas. 

■>".  Mainlar  fisealisar  do-ulo  a  ontrada  at<''  a  saliidii,  o  inovinu'nto  dos 
ln'llit;crantes.  voriti<'ando  a  innooenoia  dos  objoclos  (pn*  eniban-aroiu. 

I".  Ordeinira  poliria  qn«'  nao  oonsinta  lu)  doseuiliar([Uo  e  veuda  dos 
'ilijcctos  provonientos  do  pro.sii.s. 

•">".  Inipedir  <pie  so  fsn-a^*  pit'sas  nas  agtms  torritoriaes  do  iinperio, 
iiiiprogando  ])ara  issi»  a  for<;a,  «Mido  noeessario;  e,  se  as  prosas  on 
t'lijcctos,  dellas  |)rovoniont«*s.  ontra<los  nos  portos  (lo  iinperio,  liouverein 
M(l()  t'citos  nas  inosinas  agnas  torritoriaes,  deverao  ser  arrcoadados  pt  las 
anteritlados  ooinpetontos  ]»ara  so  rostituironi  aos  sous  legitiinos  proprie- 
tiiiios,  oonsidcrando.se  sempre  nulla  a  vonda  de  taes  objeetos. 

(•".  Nao  adinittir  nos  ]Mirtos  do  iniporio  o  bolligerante  que  uma  vez 
liouvor  violado  a  nenti-alidade. 

7".  I'azor  .sahir  inunofliataniento  do  torritorio  maritiino  do  iini)orio, 
iiao  Dies  fornocondo  etiu.sa  al'^tinia,  os  navios  quo  tentarciu  viohsr  a 
neutral  idade. 

^".  Finalinontc,  nsar  <la  foi^a,  o,  na  falta  ou  insufflconcia  desta  pro- 
jtostar  soloinne  e  energioani«  nto  contra  o  bolligerante  <jne  Hondo  advor- 
[tido  e  intiinado  nao  desistii-  da  violaoao  da  ncutialidade  do  imperio; 
10  A— u 


B'  ''^'''' 

1^  "im- 

i    ' 

1    ■     : 

146 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 


onlenaiulo  iis  fortalozas  e  aos  navios  de  gnerra  que  atiroin  solir* 

[GOO]    o  *bt?lli}jorante  que  acoiniiietter  o  son  iniinij^o  no  nosso  trnitoriu. 

e  sobre  o  iiavio  ariiiado  que  se  dispu/er  a  saliir  antes  de  di-cor 

rido  o  tenipo  luarcado  depois  da  saliida  do  navio  perten(!ente  ao  bellij;p. 

rante  contiario. 

E  poi(|ue  o  vapor  Alabama  doa  Estados-Confederados  violou  mani 
festaiuente  a  neutialidade  do  iuiperio,  por  ter  iutViii;»ido  as  disposinH-, 
da  cinndar  do  P  de  Agosto  de  1801,  tornando  a  ilba  liata  em  bast'i'.^ 
suas  opora^'oes,  pois  que  para  alii  coudu7.iu  presas,  e  sahiu  a  f;iztr 
outras,  (jue  inandou  queiniar  depois  de  as  liaver  conservado  al^inns 
dias  no  ancoradouro  ua  nu'sina  illia;  ordena  sua  niajj^estade  o  inipcri 
dor  que  o  dito  vajuir  nao  seja  niais  recebido  em  i)orto  aljium  do  inqurip. 
llenovo  a  V.  Ex.  as  seguraneas  de  minba  i>ert'eita  estima,  e  distimti 
cousiderayao. 

MAllQUEZ  DE  ABRANTES, 
As.  Ex.  0  Sr.  Pn'uldcnte  da  Pt'ovincla  de    .    .     .     , 


I 


[COl] 

1 


*Xo.  G. 


Seccao. — Circular. — Rio  de  Jajseiro  em  17  de  Dezembroke 
18G4. — MiNisTERio  DOS  Negocius  Estrangeiros. 

Ill""'  Ex"'"  S"^:  Em  officio  de  24  do  niez  proximo  findo  communiconinr 
o  i)residente  da  proviiu*ia  da  IJaliia  que  alii  (iliegara  a  galera  americaiu 
"Kate  Prince,"  procedente  de  CardilV,  a  qual  t'ora  visitada  no  alto  mat 
pelo  vapor  con  federado  "  Slienandoali,"cujo  con)nuindante  exigira  docai>i- 
tao  da  mesma  galera,  para  deixal  a  continuar  a  sua  viagem,  que  assigiiav* 
uma  obriga^ao  pecuniaria  e  recebesse  a  sen  bordo  <]uatorze  prisiouoin^ 
l)roveniciites  de  dons  navios  incendiados. 

Havendoocommandante  do  "  Sbenandoah,"  James  AV.  Waddell.prati 
cado.  o  acto  de  viplar  o  sello  do  considado  do  imperio  que  leeliava  » 
nuinifesto  d,a  galera  "  Kate  Prince,"  resolveu  o  governo  imperial  que  fosjr 
vedada  a  entrada  em  todos  os  portos  do  lirazil  ao  dito  vapor  "  Slienac 
doah,"  ou  a  qualquer  outro  navio  (;ommandado  pelo  referido  WadtWL 

O  que  levo  ao  conheciinento  de  Y.  E.  para  sua  intelligencia  e  execiuai 
iia  parte  que  respeita  a  essa  provincia. 

Aproveito  a  opportuuidatl  para  renovar  a  Y.  E.  as  assegurancas  tli 
minha  perfeita  estima  e  distincta  consideracao.    A.  S.  E.  o  Sr.  pn>; 

dente  da  provincia  de (ass.) 

[G02]  *JOAO  PEDEO  DIAS  KEIKA. 

Conforme. 

0.  director  Ural  intcrino,  Alexandre  Affonse  de  Garvaliio. 


No.  7. 

Sec(;Xo. — N. — Circular. — Rio    de   Janeiro. — Ministebio 
Negocios  Estrangeiros,  em  27  DE  Agosto  de  1870. 


D<)J 


Illm.  E  ExM.  Sr:  A  legayao  de  sua  magestade  o  imperador  <l"i> 
Francezes  notiticou  ao  governo  imperial,  por  nota  de  14  do  correntp.a 
guerra  que  rebentou  entre  a  Franya  de  uni  lado  e  de  outro  a  Prussia  f  | 
OS  paizes  allindos  que  dao  ^i  esta  o  coucurso  de  suas  annas. 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    THE    UNITED   STATES. 


147 


'^h 


A  inosnm  lo^^^ii^fio  solicitou,  e  o  jjoverno  (To  sua  inajjostadc  .'icaba  <le 
(Icclarai-llu*,  <|iu?  o  liiasil  obscrvara  a  iiiais  striata  neutralidade  durante 
fssa  gnerra,  assini  para  com  a  Fran|;a,  eoiuo  para  com  o  outro  bellige- 
raiite  c  seus  alliados. 

0  <,'<)vc'iii()  frauces  [>roinette  (pie  suas  foryas  de  mar  e  de  terra  obser- 
vaiao  eserupulosanuMite  para  coin  as  potencias  neutrae.s  as  rey;ras  «b) 
(liri'ito  iuteruacional  e  os  juincipios  estabeleiudos  pel«»  eoiiyresso  de 
raiiz  ein  sua  deelara<;rio  de  Ki  de  Abril  tie  1850. 

O  JJrasil  adberiu,  eouio  V.  Ex.  sabe,  a  a(pielles  prineipios,  e  tern 
;(}03]    i)ortaut('  direito  a  cpie  os  uavios  •bra/ileiros  e  .suas  meicadorias 
{;»)zeni  das  garautias  por  elles  assejjnradas. 

Os  prineipios  a  que  alhulo  sao  os  seyuintes: 

1 ,  O  corso  e  o  tica  abolido. 

1'.  ()  pavilliao  neutral  cobre  a  niercadoria  iniiniga,  com  excepeiio  do 
niiiUabando  de  guerra. 

:'}.  A  niercadoria  neutral,  com  excepyao  do  contrabando  de  guerra, 
ufio  iMide  ser  apresada  sob  o  i)avilliao  inimigo. 

4.  Os  bhxpieios,  para  serem  obrigatorios,  devem  ser  eftectivos,  isto  6, 
mmitidos  por  ror«;a  sulUciente  para  proliibir  realmeute  o  accesso  ao  lit- 
toral inimigo. 

A  Tnissia  lez  parte  do  ultlmocongressode  Paris,  e  conse(pienteniente 
f>ia  obriga<la  as  niesnuis  regras  de  nioderayao  e  beuevolencia  para  com 
<•>  estados  neutraes  na  presente  guerra. 

Km  eonformidade  do  <pu^  levo  exposto,  cumpreque  V.  Ex.  previna  ao 
(Iit'le  de  policia  dessa  provineia  e  as  respectivas  autoridades  tiscaes, 
luaiidando  inserir  esta  circular  na  follia  (pu*  publicar  os  actos  olliciaes, 
f  iKiilendo  por  qu*d(pier  tuUro  meio  que  Julgar  convenient*'  fazer  constar 
.HIS  subditos  brasileiros  alii  residei.'tes  esta  deliberaeao  do  governo  de 
>ua  uiagestade,  a  tim  de  (pu*  todos  s<5  abstenliao  rigorosaniente  de  actos 

ojipostos  aos  «leveres  de  uma  stricta  neutralidade. 
004]       Km  quanto  o  g<»verno   inqierial  nao  exi>edir  *instnic^'r»es  es- 
peciaes,  deversi  V.  Ex.  guiar  se  pelas  cireulares  do  1"  de  Agosto 
lie  18G1,  e2.j  de  Junbo  de  1803,  no  que  lor  applicavel  ao  caso  de  que  so 
trata. 

Tenlio  a  lionra  de  renovar  a  Y.  Ex.  os  piotcstos  de  minha  perl'eita 
t-stima  e  distineta  consideraeao. 

BARAO  DE  COTEGIPE, 
A.  S.  Ex.  o  Sr.  PreHuknte  da  rrorincia  de.    .    .    , 


C'i51 


♦No.  8. 


1'Seccao. — N. — Circular. — Rio  de  Janeiro.— ^NrixisxERio  dos  Ne- 

GOCIOS   ESTRANGEIROS,  EM   14  DE   OUTUMRO   DE   1870. 

Illm.  e  Exm.  Sr.  :  Sua  magestade  o  imperador  liouve  por  bem  re- 
«»lver  que,  na  presente  guerra  entre  a  Fran^'a  e  a  Prussia,  sejao  man- 
[tidas  as  cireulares  deste  minlsterlo  de  1  de  Agosto  de  18(>1,23  de  Junho 
|Je  1,S(»3  e  27  de  Agosto  ultimo,  com  o  seguinte  additamento: 

1°.  Os  navios  dos  belligerantes  tomaiao  conibustivel  uos  portos  do 
[iiuiKTio  unicamente  para  a  continua«,'ao  da  viagem. 

E  prolnbido  o  Ibrnecimento  de  carvao  aos  navios  que  percorrerem  os 
[maivs  vi/inlios  do  Brazil  para  apresar  embarca^oes  do  iiiimigo  ou 
[l'^aticar  qualquer  outro  genero  do  liostili«lades. 

Ao  uavio  que  uma  vez  receber  combustivol  em  uossos  portos  uao  se 


}a1 


IV     ; 


'i  ■( 


■1^»»- 


148 


TRF.ATY    OF   WASHINGTON — rAPERS   ACCOMrANYINO 


]ipnnitfii;'i  novo  foniocimoiito  soiifio  f]unn(lo  lioiivor  docorrido  mn  prnzn 
lii/oMvcI,  (|iu'  fii(;;i  crcr  <|ii('  o  dito  iiavio  veyros.sou  depois  de  coiicluiduii 
sn;i  vi!i'4(Hn  ii  iiiii  jtorto  t'striin^ciro. 

li".  Ii  pi()liil)i<l(>  iiiiimnciiU'  polo  t«'lojir!i]i1io  a  pnvtida  on  a  i»rn\iiiiii 
clici^iida  iW  al^iini  iiavio,  iiicrcaiitc  on  de  jzncrra  dos  bcllii^'eraiitosoiKlm 
a  (-'.sti'  (|iial(iiu'r  onk'in,  instriu'roi'.s  ou  aviso,  teiidcnte  a  prcjiuliciir  u 

iiiiini^o. 
[(5()(IJ        *N('sto  sontido  V.  Kv.  dovora  o\'i)odir  as  convcnioiitos  ordciisiis 
ostarucs  dos  tt'l('<,'iapli(ts  c  aos  alviraroiros. 
A]>rov(>it()  a  oppoihiiiidadi!  ])ani  roitcrai'  a  V.  Ex.  as  scgnraiirns  ih_ 
miulia  pc'ifeita  cstiiiia  e  distincta  ('onsidoracao. 

VlsrONDH  DE  S.VICENTE, 
A.  ^'.  JjX.  o  iSr.  l*rm<knte  da  Vrovinvia  de  .... 


MDIORAXDi: 


1^  ' 


111    1 


1^1 


UlO  DF<  JAMURO. 


Xo.  0. 

-^FlNISTHKlO    DOK  Xi:(IOrTO«  ESTIMNGEIIIO.S,  KM  L'H 

i)E  OuTUJiiJO  Di:  1870. 


No  iiiioiito  do  vo^-nlar  o  disposto  iia  coiidiono  .1.  da  (iironlar  dc  iM 
do  .Innho  do  1S().'>,  cumpro  (jtio,  dinaiito  a  ^iiorra  oiitio  a  Train-a  e  ,i 
l*nissia,  sojao  obscrvadas  as  so;^uintos  ])rovidoncias  : 

!•'.  ()s  naviosdccoaiinoroiodo  inn  dos  l)ollijj;oraiitos,qnoqMizoroin  saliir 
do  i)oi'l(),  dovoiao  dav  aviso  \w\'  o.s('rii)to,  com  a  aiitocodoiioia  <it'  I'l 
horas,  ao  ooiiunaudaiito  da  ostaoao  naval  <lo  dia  e  hora  em  (pie  teiii  dc 
sarpar.     No  aviso  doclaraiao  so  sao  a  vapor  on  de  vela. 

L''.  ()  coiiimaiidanto  da  ostaoao  naval,  so  nao  tivor  sido  ])vovonido  dasa 

liida  i\c  al.unni  navio  di'  j^noi ra  do  ontro  bolli^^oranto, mandaii'i  iiiti 

[(!07J    mar  *aos respect ivos  com mandantes,(iuo nao podovaodoixar.o port) 

sonao  de^xiis  do  passado  o  tempo  da  sobre  dita  condi(;ao  .>.  Fai;i 

alom  disso,  os  necessarios  avisos  as  fortale/as  eend)arcacdos  de  rej;istrii, 

?y\  Os  (litos  navios  mercantes  in~io  deverao  .sarpar  sem  «pie  toiilifi) 
ros[)ostn,  por  osoripto,  declai'atoria  do  qno  ostfu)  dadas  as  dovidas  provi 
doMcias,  ('  (pie  portanto  podom  rotirarso.  A  resposta  sera  dada  com  tod.i 
brevidade. 

1".  Xos  lu.:;aros  ondo  nao  liouvor  eommandante  de  estacao  naval,  o 
aviso  das  eml)ar('aooos  moieantes  sera  diri«>;ido  ao  capitao  do  porto;  mi 
falta  desfe  ao  eommandante  da  lortaleza  de  registro;  e,  nao  liavomlo 
fortaloza,  ao  <le  <pial(|nor  navio  de  <;-nerra  brasileiro  que  ahi  se  adio;  e, 
em  ultimo  easo,  a  uuiior  antoridade  i»olicial  da  loealidade. 

()  ruuociouario  a  <pu'm  o  aviso  nos  sobreditos  tormos  lor  diri;;ido.  t''i» 
eompetente  para  lazor  a  intimacaoaos  navios  de  puerra  belli<;erant«'s. 

."»'.  Os  navios  do  ,uuerra  dos  bellij'erantes,  <]ue  nao  qtuzorem  tor  a  sii;i 
saliida  impodida  j^ela  retirada  suecessiva  das  embarcracoos  nu'rcantcsdn 
de  navios  do  jiuerra  eontrarios  deverao  commnnicar,  eom  antieipaoritMlf 
- i  horas  nos  tormos  sobreditos,  a  preten^ao  da  sua  retirada.    A  priori 

dado  da  saluda  sera  reftuhula  pela  da  entrej>a  do  aviso. 
[008]  *0".  Alem  do  que  fiea  disposta,  os  navios  do  guerra  nao  ])odor;l ) 
doixar  o  porto  sem  que  primeiro  eiitrem  as  end)arca^'r)os  menrantos 
do  ontro  bolligerante,  que  estejao  a  barra,  ou  tenliao  sido  annunciadiis 
pelo  telegrapho,  ou  pelos  alvi«;areiros,  salvo  se  derem  os  respeetivos 
eommandantes  sua  palavra  de  lionra  ao  eommandante  duesta^'ao  naval, 
e  na  sua  falta  ao  funccionario  competeute,  de  que  Diio  llies  farao  mnl 
nlgum ;  c  se,  alem  disso,  nao  estiverem  impedidos  de  sabir  por  outw 
motivo. 

VISCONDE  DE  9.  VICENTE. 


COUNTER    CASE    OF   THE    UNITED    STATES. 


14!) 


1)09]  *N(>.  10. 

mi;mokani)i:m  of  questions  ijetweex  ijrazil,  chij.manv,  and  fjjance. 

A  ivliition  of  tlio  fiu.'ts  and  n'^iiiiuroi'  tlio  (loricspoiKlciu!!;'  bi'twccii  the 
lir.iziliaii  j^ovcniiiuiiit  iiiiil  llic  J'ri'iicli  iiiid  Nortli  (Jcniiiiii  K';;atit>iis  in 
llrazil,  ill  it'laMoii  to  the  iilh'x'('<l  violation  of  tiie  iiciitiailty  of  Ilra/.ii, 
mill  abuse  of  tlie  lij-ht  of  asyluiii  a(!(!onleil  by  Iiei-  to  tlie  vessels  of 
Will, :i"*^  their  jui/es,  (with  a«lehiy  of  twenty-four  hours,)  by  tiu'  brinj;iniL;' 
into  llio  (h'  .Jant'iro  «)n  thii  11th  Stqiteinbi'r,  1S7(»,  of  the  North  (ierniau 
iiicrcliantvessels  Lueie  and  Cone(»rdia  captured  by  the  French  ,^nn-i)oat 
lliiiiiclin,  and  lei't  in  the  liarl>or  of  Itio,  tor  thc^  pnr[)ose  (as  alie;;cd)  of 
ili.M'liarj;iii;4'  j^oods  on  board  beh>nj;inji'  to  neutrais,  (whicli  was  (h)ne.) 
iiikI  by  the  h'avin;^'  said  vessels  in  sai<l  Inirbor,  in  char^^e  of  only  one 
iiiiiriner  on  board  of  eat^h,  taken  from  another  l''rcncli  vessel  in  port,  ami 
iiink'r  the  care  of  the  l'r«MM'h  consul;  and  by  the  «'ominji  in  afterward 
ol' tlii^  I'rench  f;un-boat  Hruix,  from  whom  men  were  sent  and  placed 
nil.  iiiiil  in  eharjjeof,  said  vessels,  which  w<>i'e  tiien  tak<'n  out  of  the  har- 
btir  uiidci'  convoy  of  said  Uiuix,  October  I'L",  1870. — (Fron»  the  IJelatorio 

(Forei^^n  atVaii-s,)  1S7I.) 
;i)IOJ      *()n  the  1  tth  <d"  Septend)er,  1870,  two  German  njen-hant-vessels, 
the  Lucie  and  the  Concordia,  were   by  oflii'crs  in  char^ic  brou;;ht 
iiitotlici  harbor  of  Ifio  as  having"  been  captured  by  the  French  gun-boat 
Ihiiuelin,  as  lier  ]uizes  of  war. 

Tlie  entry  of  such  vessels  under  such  circumstances  was  ]>erinitted 
Iiy  tlie  1>ra/,iliau  cir(!ulars  of  August  -7,  1870,  in  which  referenite  was 
iiiiulc  to  those  of  August  1,  18(51,  and  June  IM,  ISd'!,  and  a  [n'rmission 
tit  icinain  twenty-four  hours  ac<!orded.  The  necessity  of  h'aving  at  tlie 
i'.\|»ii'ation  of  that  period  was  notilied  to  the  commanding  olllcers  of  the 
inizcs. 

It  ap|>earing,  however,  that  on  board  of  the  (rerman  vessels  were 
Spoils  of  neutrals,  the  iini>erial  government  admitted  that,  under  the 
principles  lai«l  down  by  the  congress  of  Paris,  IS,")!*,  m»ue  time  would 
liiive  to  be  allowed,  in  onler  to  permit  the  unloading  of  such  neutral 
.UDods,  and  that  as  soon  as  this  could  b(^  elf.'cled,  the  vessels  must  leave. 
Tliederman  legation  at  once  <*laimed  that  IJrazil  was  bound  to  restore 
those  vessels  to  their  owners  and  to  exclude  the  llamelin  from  the  ports 
uf  Ihii/il ;  because, 

1st.  The  Concordia  had  been  captured  in  IJrazilian  waters,  in  \  iola- 
tion  by  France  of  lira/ilian  neutrality. 
■iJll]  *2.  JJecausethe  llamelin  havingleft  Kioonthellth  August, and 
returned  on  the  1  tth  kSe|)tember,  had  not,  in  tlu>  interval,  enter«'d 
into  !uiy  Fr<Mich  port,  nor  into  any  neutral  iiort,  but  had  evidently  been 
liuiviiig  in  tiie  ports  and  umler  islands  oil"  the  coast  of  15razil.  And 
oil  tiie  17th  September  the  same  ((lerman)  minister  claimed  tln^  release 
and  restoration  of  the  other  vessel  (Lucie)  on  the  same  grounds. 

The  French  legation,  on  the  other  hand,  declared  that  the  prizes  had 
lu'iMi  taken  six  miles  and  sixty  meters  distant  from  the  ]\Lirica  Islands, 
1111(1  on  the  high  seas,  outside  the  territcnial  jurisdiction,  ami  tli 't  the 
Hanieliu  having  left  Itio  for  Montc'vi(U'«),  on  the  11th  August,  had  entered 
the  last-named  port  on  the  20th;  left  there  on  the  lid  September,  and 
ivtiuned  to  llio  on  the  l.'Jth  September. 

The  liraziliau  minister  of  foreijjn  uH'airs  then  addressed  a  letter  ofin- 
qiiiry  to  the  president  of  the  province  of  llio«le  .Faneiro,  reipiiring  him 
to  make  iminiry  and  take  proofs,  who  "  some  time  afterward"  answered 
that  nothing  could  be  proven ;  notwithstanding  every  etlbrt  and  search, 


r 


150 


TREATY   OF   WASHINGTON — PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 


^  \l 


I,: 


h*- 


'i^HI' 


up  ami  down  tlio  coast,  for  persons  wlio  must  have  soon  tho  ti^jlit  or  at- 
tack, (in  case  it  had  taken  place  so  near  land  as  allej^ed,)  and  that  tlii> 
llanielin  had  not  been  in  atiy  Ih'a/.ilian  i^ort,  and  had  not  been  somi 

iioveriii;;  on  the  coast.  The  ISra/.iiian  government  tlierefore  (!oii. 
fOlL'J    chided  tliat  tliere  *had  been  (then)  no  violation  ot  Brazilian  iici|. 

trality  by  tiu^  act  (»f'  the  IFamelin,  and  that  it  (!oidd  not  comply 
with  the  demand  for  restoration ;  nor  for  the  exclusion  of  tlie  Freiicii 
capturin;;  vessel  from  tiu'  Uiazilian  ports,  dininj?  the continnan(!e  of  the 
war.  This  exchision  was  afterward  ordered,  for  other  rea.sons,as  stated 
below. 

Tiie  (lernian  ley:ation  in  l»ra/,il  then  obJe(rted  to  the  admission  iiitu 
lira/ilian  ports  of  i»ri/cs  of  (lerman  vessels  under  tlie  above  circulms, 
as  of  itself  a  breach  of  neutrality,  which,  rijjhtly  understood  and  piar 
ticed,  would  ccpially  ex<'lii(leall  vessels  claimed  as  jiri/e  by  eitlu'r  liel- 
lijierent ;  and  espcciidly  sincc^  the  (lerman  j^overnment  had  jiiven  ordcK 
not  t»>  captun*  merchant-vessels  belon<;ing'  to  the  enemy,  by  the  order  of 
July  ]S,  ISTO. 

The  Ura/ilian  {government  replied  that  this  new  ride  or  order  was  oiii' 
whi<'h  was  not  oi)lijratory  on  any  power  who  did  not  at-knowled^'c  its 
principle,  and  that  no  chanj;e  of  the  rule  of  muitrality  (which  admittid 
l>ri/('s  of  both  bellifrerents  with  <lelay  of  twenty  four  hours)  <'onl(l  W 
accepte<l,  unless  aclmittcd  by  the  (»ther  bellifierent,  and  agreed  to  by  tlii> 
pnernnu'ut  also;  which,  when  it  laid  down  the  I'ules  for  (!ondu(;t  to  its 
uHicers  an«l  agents,  in  its  circulars,  could  not,  and  did  not,  km)w  the 

new  exception  introduced,  or  i)roposed  by  the  (lerman  yovciii- 
[01 3 1    nient.     iJesides  (as  *since  appears)  the  decree  of  ISth  July,  iSlii. 

was  afterward  revoked  by  another,  issued  (at  Vers  illeif)  by  tlie 
same  government,  in  January,  1S71. 

The  (Hrazilian)  circulars  of  ISiJl  and  1803,  which  were  thus  objected 
to  by  the  (Prussian)  N.  CI.  government,  were  objected  to  also  by  tlie 
French,  and  for  reasons  quite  as  unsound;  for  (the  French  chiu<.'c 
stated)  those  circulars  imi)ose<l  restrictions  on  the  freedom  of  actional 
the  French  naval  forces.  France  maintained  a  large  navy;  the  (lei 
mans  none.  This  last  had  a  large  army;  the  French  army  was  not  so 
numerous.  France  thus  diverted  to  the  enlargement  and  mainteniuiee 
of  her  navy  large  surtis,  which,  in  case  no  such  armament  existed,  niijilit 
have  gone  to  the  increase  of  her  army.  That  government,  therelore. 
which,  by  its  acts,  under  form  of  preserving  its  own  neutrality,  limited 
or  restrained  the  efforts  of  the  I'^cnch  naval  force  upon  its  eneinv's 
commerce,  in  etlect,  assisted  that  enemy. 

The  lira/iiian  government  answered  that  both  France  and  (jlerniaiiv, 
by  their  reclamations,  attempted  to  set  up  a  new  rule  of  neutrality, 
namely,  that  a  neutral  power  should  formulate  the  conditions  of  its 
neutrality  according  to  the  distribution  and  organization  of  the  laud 
and  seaarnuiments  of  the  respective  belligerents.    It  is  needless  to 

l)oint  out  that  the  attempt  to  enforce  such  a  nove.1  regulation 
[014]    *would  at  once  involve  the  neutral  in  the  great  difticulty  (amou;,' 

others)  of  requiring  the  condition  of  neutrality  to  change  witli 
the  alternating  vicissitudes  of  war.  The  Brazilian  government,  thoio 
fore,  would  maintain  the  attitude  in  which  it  had  placed  itself,  wliicu 
was  justified  by  the  principles  maintained  before  the  outbreak  of  the 
Franco  (lerman  war,  and  which  had  been  sustained  by  the  positions 
assumed  by  the  French  government  and  by  the  decrees  in  Freucli 
courts  of  prize. 

The  discharge  of  merchaiulise  belonging  to  neutrals  on  board  the 
Lucie  was  completed  on  the  2'tth  September,  (1870.)  The  chief  of  police 


come  into 


COUNTER   CASE   OF  THE   UNITED   STATES. 


151 


nfts  thoroforo  dircctod  to  notify  tlie  o(flt'«'r  iti  chiirjjo  of  that  voasol,  as 
well  as  the  oflleer  in  chaifje  of  the  (/oneonlia,  as  soon  as  she  ha«l  hiiKled 
siicli  }r<»o<la  ffom  the  car^jo;  aiul  the  fact  of  siieh  onler  having  been 
I'iven  was  n»a«le  known  also  to  the  French  h*j?ation  in  Kio. 

At  the  (expiration  of  th«!  time  allowed,  ami  thus  prolon^jed,  and  not- 
witlistandin}?  the  declaration  of  the  French  charge  that  the  llameliii 
,tliL'  captor)  would  conform  to  tlie  noti«!e,  it  was  not  complicMl  with. 
The  llamelin  had  left  the  port  on  the  2.'{d  of  September,  having  left  oti 
l/oai'd  the  two  captured  vessels  in  the  harbor  an  insudicient  number  of 

men  to  navigate  them. 
[015]  *The  German  nunister  at  oiu'e  declared  this  condition  of  facts 
to  the  l^ra/ilian  government,  and  protesfc<l  against  any  attempt 
to  increase  the  nund)er  of  men  while  in  this  harbor.  The  French  charge 
(liicctcd  the  French  consul  to  order  the  dei>aiture  of  the  Lucie,  ami  of 
the  Concordia,  as  "soon  as  certain  repairs  had  been  made,  which  were 
indispensable  to  the  prosecution  of  her  voyage,"  and  asked  a  further 
lir()longati<»n  of  time  therefor. 

The  Brazilian  government  declined,  stating  that  the  delay  of  twenty- 
four  hours  allowed  by  the  rules  of  neutrality,  and  permitted  by  their 
instructions,  could  be  prolonged  only  in  case  of  forced  arrival,  (by  stress 
of  weather.)  and  to  discharge  goods  on  board  belonging  to  neutrals.  In 
liict,  when  the  llamelin  left,  on  the  L'.'Jd  of  September,  she  had  placed 
on  board  each  one  of  her  prizes  one  man  sent  by  the  French  consul,  and 
taken  from  on  board  a  French  menihant  shii>  in  the  harbor,  the  Mineiro. 
Any  increase  of  armament,  or  addition  to  their  crews,  would  not  bo 
allowed,  (and  besides,  the  llamelin  had  already,  by  taking  back  on  board 
tiic  prize-masters  and  crews  which  she  had  phaced  on  board  those  vessels 
at  tlic  moment  of  capture  here,  augmented  her  own  crew  by  an  addition, 

in  this  port,  to  the  number  on  board  of  her  when  she  entered.) 
[GIG]  *The  French  (;«)nsul  then  (in  a  note  to  the  (!hief  of  police)  asked 
l)ermission  to  place  on  boanl  the  prizes  live  men,  taken  from 
other  French  vessels,  who  should  assist  only  until  they  had  passed  the 
bar,  and  should  return  in  the  tug-boat  which  was  to  tow  them  out.  The 
French  charge,  then,  also  discovered  that  the  second  condition  (case 
mentioned  and  provided  for)  in  the  lirazilian  circular  of  lS(i;j  was  iu)t 
applicable  to  prizes,  but  only  to  vessels  of  war;  and  that  since,  before 
tlie  war,  a  French  merchant  vessel  would  be  entitled  to  engage  and 
receive  on  board  such  number  of  uumi  as  might  be  necessary  to  continue 
her  voyage,  to  refuse  it  now  to  the  Lucie  and  Concordia  (the  cai)tured 
vessels)  would  be  a  violation  of  that  admitted  right,  and  asked  a  further 
delay,  in  order  to  be  able  (to  assure  the  safe  departure)  to  get  the  vessels 
safely  to  sea. 

The  lirazilian  government  refused,  and  said  that  the  prohibition  upon 
new  armament  or  increase  of  crew  applied  to  su(;h  vessels  as  the  Lucie 
and  Concordia,  and  must,  since  otherwise  any  vessels  of  war,  capturing 
many  merchantmen,  and  weakening  her  own  force  by  the  distribution 
among  them,  from  her  own  company,  of  prize-master  and  crews,  could 
come  into  a  neutral  port,  there  deposit  her  prizes  in  safety,  without 
crews,  receive  back  Ler  own,  and  again  go  to  sea  to  repeat  such  maneu- 
vers. 
[617]  *  It  then  appeared  that  the  French  charge  was  about  to  i)er- 
mit,  if  not  to  authorize,  the  act  (declared  by  the  French  consul 
to  the  chief  of  police)  to  tow  the  prizes  out  to  sea  by  a  French  gun- 
boat, which  ho  had  sent  for,  and  asked  from  the  commander  of  the 
French  naval  forces  on  this  station.  Whereupon  the  Brazilian  govern- 
uieat  notified  the  French  legation  that  these  vessels  would  not  be 


ff 


152 


TUKATY    OF    WASIIINGTOX PAIT.RS    ACC'OMPAWIXG 


h' 


^i: 


iHi'iiiittctl  to  loiivo  this  iKMt,  ov<'n  in  tow  of   u  I'lfiich  vessel  of  wai : 
(iiiil   tliis  resolution   Wiis  also  inii<I(>  Known  to  the  (iernian  iiiiiiistci-. 

The  Fi'eneh  h';4iition,  on  tin'  7tli  ( h-lnlter  (nnirk,  tlic  prizes  imd  ,  i,. 
tt'Ved  on  tht^  1 1th  ►Septenilter,  iinil  the  diselnii';;i'  of  floods  bel(»ii;;iiiL;  in 
neutrals  was  aeeoniplished  l»y  the  lan-ie  iMth  September,  ami  the  (..m 
eordia)  protested  a;;ainst  sneh  order,  ami  said: 

ir  Itra/ii  does  not  wiwii  to  ri't(>i\<>  into  In-r  ]>iMtM  vcxhi'Ih  ^^(tMii'il  as  |Mi/,n  of  wm. 
h\u-  sIkiiiM  liavc  sii  (H'cl^irt-il  in  Iht  niiK\\<-r  tn  inv  iiolirn.ilinn  (nf  tlif  ilii'liiiiitiini  <.; 
will' Im'I  ween  I'limrc  and  Nciitli  (^rniiiii  riiidii)  III!  tile  I  llli  \ii;^ii>t  la-tt,  aiiii  --Iiiijlj, 
lit  tlic  liiiii'  111"  tlicir  cimiiiii;  in,  oliji-ctfil  to  tin-  ailmis'^idii  ol'  i  he  l.iii'ii-  ami  ( '■•uiuiilii. 
Once  rrccivt'd  into  this  |M)it  it  wonld  Itr  too  laic  to  a|i|dy  to  lliciii  rnlcs  wjiich  uii,. 
only  made  Know  n  to  nn-  on  tlu-  lOtii  ol  Si  iiti-iidiir,  (allii  lihiraniN  al,)  and  wldili  miiM 
not  lie  allowrd  to  liavr  a  rctiiiaclivf  rlli'il.  Adniiial  I'Imiih'I  lias  Just,  v.iittii, 
[fil-'']  nil'  llial  lie  will  send  to  K'io  tin'  'dis|>atfli-lioat  l,i'  llriii\  to  taUr  away  tlir  |iii/'>. 
I  tliiTi'lorr  ]m"^  your  I'XiTllcncy  will  <iiv<' ordrrs  to  allow  tlirir  df|tartiiri',  it  iH-in; 
iindiTstood  tliat  on  lioard  tlic  ('a|ituivd  vess4-l.s  tlici'o  shall  In-  idarcd  no  nirii  uidjsti'tl  nt 
en^a<;rd  in  Kio  di-  .luiii'lro. 

The  IJra/ilian  };<>vermn«'nt  answered  with  a  reeapitidation  of  diitt>. 
ami  a  narration  ol'  oeeurrenees  in  this  nnitter,  and  stated  that  tin 
llanu-lin  had  (;onie  in  with  her  prizes,  under  tlu>  priviieo(>  aet'ordeil  tn 
l)elli;;-erents  by  a  nentral  power,  and  was,  theu'lbre,  t»)  be  held  to  .siiid 
coinplianeei  with  tlu^  reqnireineiits  and  eondit ions  of  such  permission : 
that  the  time  for  stay,  liiidted  to  tw«'ntv-fonr  honrs,  was  known  to  tin 
commander  of  the  llamelin  lietore  his  arrival;  that  sneh  stay  was  inn. 
lonofd  simply  for  the  bem'lit  of  thos«*  nenlrals  whose  j^oods  were  ladiii 
on  the  i)rizes  ;  that  the  llamelin  had  «leparted,  with  jiersons  en  boanl 
taken  IVotn  the  prizes,  (French,  jind  <»f  her  own  crew,)  and  that  tliisi 
juizes  had,  in  fact,  remained  lonj;  beyond  the  time  allowed,  ami  because 
the  ca[»tors  had  not  placeil  on  board  :i  crew  snltieient  to  take  char;;('(ii 
them  ;  that  the  l-'rem-h  ctnnmander  had  j^one  ont  to  communicate,  proN 
ably,  with  the  a<lminil,  ami  tobrin;;,'  ti'om  the  licet  aid  to  make  \ali*ltli< 
possession  of  the  i)rizes,  whi<'h  aid  it  was  proposed   to  put  on  bonnl 

(though  mtt  recrnitcd)  within  this  harbor;  that  thus,  in  Inrt 
[(ill)|    *aml  cll'ect,  tliere  had  l)een   either  tin  abandonment  ol'  i)riy.t' in 

this  i)ort,  or  else  then'  was  an  attemi)t  to  make  a  nentral  poitii 
]dacc  of  dcjiosit  I'or  the  safc-keepin,!;  of  vessels  cajttnred,  and  bi't'oiv. 
and  in  ilelay  of,  their  l)einj;'  adjudged  good  prize  of  war  by  a  coinpeU'iit 
trilmnal;  tliat  by  all  this  a  violation  of  the  neiitraliiy  of  Jbazil  liinl 
occnired  ;  but  that  this  government  (iJrazil)  wonld  pntjtccd  only  altii 
consultation  of  the  coniK-il  of  state  :  that,  under  these  circnmslaiuTs, 
the  de[>artnr<'  of  he  ilrnix  conid  not  be  allowed  with  those  vessels. 
()r<lers  were,  on  the  lOth  October,  issued  to  the  captain  of  the  jxirt  to 
take  precautionary  mt'asures  to  juevent  any  accident,  and  this  \v:i> 
iiotilii'd  to  the  French  legatit)n.  (_)n  the  11th  that  legation  aiiswcicii 
that  it  i»ersisted  in  (•onsidering  the  captured  vessels  good  prize,  until  it 
■was  otherwise  declared  by  a  t-ompetetit  court  (('onseil  de  prises;)  that,  in 
onler  to  take  away  any  pretext  (sic)  from  the  llrazilian  governments 
undertaking  to  assume  possession  of  the  two  vessels,  he  had  asked  tlif 
commandant  of  JjC  JJruix  to  jdacc  on  boanl  (in  this  harbor,  of  coinsc 
a  crew  siillicient  for  hamlling  the  vessels  in  the  poi  t,  and  to  i>revcnt  iiu 
accident  (by  reason  of  swinging  at  anchor  among  other  vessels ;)  that  tin' 

JJruix  woidd,  at  once,  get  ready  to  take  these  prizes  to  sea ;  ami 
[G20J    that,  if  Ida  (your)  excellency  wished  to  *assunie  the  great  respoii 

sibility  of  preventing  such  departure  by  force,  his  excellency  ha'l 
only  to  give  order  to  the  forts  to  fire  ui)OU  the  vessel.  The  Ihuix 
will  stop  at  the  first  gun.  The  French  government  will  atterwiinl 
decide  how  this  act  of  hostility  by  the  lU'a/iliiin  government  shall  l>i' 
responded  to.    The  Braziliau  goveiumeut  answered,  by  iul'ormin 


s  tiit; 


COrXTF.R   CASE   OK   TIIK    rXITKI)    STATES. 


153 


I'roncli  Icfiiition.tliat  on  nrxt  <1:i\  (1  Hli  Ortohi'i)  a  ^rniinl  wmild  In*  pliicrd 
DM  iMtiU'il  till*  twti  vessels.  Lii<-i<-  aiitl  ('oiironlia,  and  an  inventory  taken 
ill  presence  of  Ura/ilian  aj^ents,  ami  of  tlie  l-'reneli  eonsiil  il'  lie  eliose 
to  he  |Hes(Mlt. 

Tlie  I'n'ncli  dispateli  lM»at  Uinix  iauu'  into  port  on  the  \:\\h  Oetobei", 
and  tlie  I'reneli  eonsiil  wa'^  nntilieil  l>y  tlie  eliief  of  pnljee  tliat  n  >  persons 
(Mdild  he  placed  on  l>t»;ird  the  pii/es  J'roni  the.  IJrniv.  Ni'VeitlieU-ss,  a 
iiiiiiil>cr  of  men  iVom  the  I'liiix  were  placed  on  hoard  those  two  vessels, 
;iii<l  pifparations  iiiaile  to  dep  irt  with  tlieni.  Au;.iiiist  this  the  Viseonnt 
S;;i>  Vicente  (I'.ra/ilj  prot«'sted,  as  a  new  vio!atii»ii  oi'  nentrality  and  ofthe 
IHiiice  (if  the  port.  The  ("leiinan  minister  (Mr.  de  St.  i'iene)  also  pro- 
tested to  the  I'ra/.ili.m  jroveinineni  against  sneh  a<'tion  beinj^  permitte«l, 
;iiid  ii;;aiiist  the  departure  of  the  eaptnicd  vessels. 

The  report  of  the  niinist«r  «if  lorei;;n  ridations  then  states  that  tho 
tinal  resolntioii  t:'/Ken  liy  the  llra/ilian  j^overninent  was  made 
(IlM]      known  to  both  •lej^ations  as  follows: 

Tlic  iiii|i)  rial  jjovorminMit  li:iviii<r  duly  roiiHiiliii'il  tlii'  iiicaiis  i>f  iiiaktn;;  availaldc  its 
ii;;litH,  lias  |ii'('l°inril  tlii»i- \\  liicli  ciiiii'iiriii  to  its  tivvii  i'i-;;iilali<iiis,  ami  till-  |>riiiiii)l<-M 
.iikiiowliil;;iil  ill  tlic  law  of  iiatioii>.  ami  wilii  ii.-aj(is  uJiiili  pi(\ail.  It  lli«T«*loic'  tle- 
iliinsto  M.  li"  ciiai;;!'  il'alVain-s: 

1.  Tliat  tin-  stcaimr  Ilaiiicliii  will  not  Itc  adiii'ttcil  into  any  j>ort  of  tlu>  «>mjiiro  lurr- 
;ill(r  dm  iii;r  the  war  hftwccn  I'raiiri'  aii<l  I'ni.ssia,  and  onlos  will  lio  si-iit,  to  ?^ciin-  lliat 
iiiil,  III  tilt' ilillrimt  |ioii.s  aiitl  otliri  i>. 

•.'.  That  tlif  iiniKii.il  ;;ov<rminnt  luott-its  (o  ami  will  claim  from  tlw  Freiicli  jiovorn- 
iiiiiit  tlif  piopcr  r<-|»aratioM  for  tin-  violation  of  its  ii;;iits  of  soVfrri;{iity  iu  rt-latioii  to 
;i\vliiiii  ami  m-ntrality,  ami  for  tin-  con^i'iiiicncr  tlicri'lVom  rcsiiltin;;. 

:!.  That  to  this  cml  orders  will  he  ;ji\cll,  so  that  thi'  |»li/i-.s  ahovr  lii«>iitioiH-<l  can  dc- 
|i:nt  I'loiii  this  jioi't  with  the  cirws  ini|>ro)i<'i']y  plat'i-d  on  hoard  tlu-m  fnnii  tin-  Kmix. 
Tiiry  nm-^l  di|tart  within  t wriity-fonr  lioiirs.  datfil  fioin  thr  notiii'  wliii-li  will  h>-  M-nt 
t>)(i;iy  to  till' ('oiniiiamh-r  of  the  Urnix.  It  must  also  In- notiri'd  that  sim-c  u  (o-rniaii 
'uiliiii;^  im-rcliantniaii  Irl't  this  jiort  to-day  at  "J  o'clock,  the  I'niix  •  annot  !«•  allowed 
iiMl(']i;Mt  until  alter  the  e\]iiratioii  of  the  seventy-two  hours  nrfst-rihctl  l»y  llic  .'>th 
KiiMlitiiiii)  case  piovidcil  for  in  the  circular  of  •J:!d  .June,  HjJ:}. 

liJlI]       *Tlio  Freiudi  ehar;;"<''  jirotested  against   the  exclusion  of  the 

Ilaiiudin  liecanse.  in    his  jiid^^inent,  tiiat  vessel  had  hiuii;;lit  her 

inizcs  into  Wut  only  out  of  eon.'siderafion  for,  and  for  the  pnr|iose  ot, 

'iisiliiirgiiijj;  the  nier<diandi>e  on  board  such  pri/.e.s  belon^injf  to  neii- 

tnils. 

Tiiederinan  minister  jHotested  anew  a.i^ainst  the  permitted  tlej)artnre 
••1'  the  (Jerman  Vi'ssels  as  |iri/.es  of  the  I'lemdi  vessel  of  war,  and  said 
"lie  wmild  inform  his  j;ov<'riinient  of  the  nnsatisfact<»ry  result  of  his 
cllorts  to  obtain  from  llra/.il  a  decision  in  those  respects  in  accordance 
with  the  duties  of  a  nentral  state."' 

Ill  connection  with  this,  a  question  tifterward  arose  as  to  the  proper 
liaities  to  whom  should  be  paid  the  freight  due  by  the  (nentral)  owners 
ot  jroods  landed  here  from  these  two  (leniian  vessels.  The  French 
iliiiifie  submitted  this  question  to  his  jjoveiniiieiit,  which  answeretl  that 
tlie  (Kremdi)  consnl  should  deliver  the  «>«>ods  to  smdi  neutral  owners 
who  would  sijLjn  a  declaration  oblijiin;:-  llu'iusclves  to  [lay  the  amount  (.f 
the  fi('i,t;ht  to  the  Fii'iieh  j^oveninii'iit,  if  it  should,  after  an  understand- 
iii^j'  with  IJrazil,  deei<le  that  it  was  due  to  the  captor. 

The  French  eharj^e  had  eomplained  that  the  North  (Jerman  eonstd 
had  made  a  visit  and  search  on  board  the  two  vess«ds,  jjoing  jn 
[•523]    his  uniform,  and  in  a  'boat  liavinjf  his  flag  hoisted,  an<l  at  the  mo- 
ment when  the  crew  in  charge  had  retired,  after  disj.-harging  neut  ral 
jjoods,  and  while  a  guard  (one  man)  only  had  remained  on  each  vessel. 

The  Brazilian  government  objected  to  thi?  proceeding  by  the  North 


i 


154 


rREATY    OF    V'ASHINGTOX — PAPERS   ACCOMPAXYIXG 


rioniMn  ronsiil,  and  tlie  Nortli  (»erman  inijiist<^r  expl;iJn«Hl  it  in  tlic 
tollowin^j;  inanniM-: 

Thr-  (ibii-ul.  Mr.  1liiiii>i,  fur  icasoii.4(ii'  fluty,  h!iviii<jh>  visit  Hu*  fJiTHisin  vif^ssf*!  F.  liscii. 
iMi«'l)or('«1  in  tlii-i  j>or( ,  iiiiil  )iii.Hsiii<r  III)  his  way  to  tlitit  v»',s.s«'!  tlu-  Liu-if  aiwi  th<' Coii- 
(■i>nli;k.  tliomjilit  li.' w(Mil<l,  on  liis  way,  Jisk  tli«  twn  Freiir.j  i>«»iloi>4  Im'Iou-jjii^  to  tlif 
lliiifiro  :ni'il  llic  nci/.iiiaii  iilHct'!' (<'iii()I<iy('-)  Koiriv  )|ut'sti<>iiH  in  n-Ialiou  to  tliu:^  twii 
Vf.vicis,  Liuie  jiikI  (."oiironlia.     lU-  di  I  not  go  on  itoard,  as  alle^t-d. 


liji 


hi 


m' 


m.  i 


J: 


[r,L!4l    FRENCH  PASSPOHTri  TO  PERSONS  RECRriTEn  IJJ  PIO 
FOR    THE    FRENCH     MilJTARV  SERVK'E    NOT   VLSI':!) 
r.Y  11! E  POLH'E  JIERETO  PREVENT  HEPAltTl'RE  OF  SK  il 
PERSONS. 

Eijiht»-«')i  imsspoi'ts,  visrd  Ihm'o  on  tho  ITtli  October.  l."^70,  by  tlic 
FixMu'Ii  niiisu!  ill  Rio  (!«'  .Fiin«"ir»>,  and  havinj''  on  tlwui  :-lMVi\  in  tin*  r-*' 
that  tin'  iM'artT  oC  such  jiassport:  was  "t'n<;a<;ied  to  ♦•irter  the  niilitjiiy 
st'rvic»*  ni'  Fiaiuv,  Jind  was  held  ti*  pii'scnt  himst;U"  to  the  proiHT  atititor- 
ity."  ut  n*  i»i<*s»uu  dat  tlicoiluMMd  lhe'.'liU'{'ofpolu;»'in  Rio,  in  order  to  have 
issn«'d  iIm' coiivsifoinliiijj;  permit  oi'  depaitnre.  The  ehiet'  ol'  police  n 
fnsi'd  to  ;4:iaiit  the  it((sr  ((>  tiie  bearers  of  siieli  passports,  and  his  ae'l'iM 
wasappioved  Itythe  iJra/ilian  government,  who  direeted  him  to  iidt  vm 
the  Freiieh  eonsnl  that  snch  r  'ernilment.sor  eii;^aji<'aient.-*  to  enlist,  niadi 
heie,  o  I  neiiual  territory,  xwre  in  vittlation  id  the  laws  and  nentralitv 
(d  Rra.i!,  aj.d  that  sueii  per.sons  so  enlisted  ctudil  not  he  allowed  to  dc 
l»avt. 


[G^o]     *  MEMORANDA  AS  TO  THE  :\IIRAN1)A  EXl'E!>ITION. 

Thon.:'i  ju'ojeets  of  hostility,  some  of  them  for  plunder,  some  for  ittr 
main-nt  eon(piest,  had  heeii  ni'dertakeii  dnrinjjf  the  wai<  iM'tweeti  tln> 
eoniiitry  and  Spuin,  a^i'ainst  partienlar  parts  of  her  tran>ailanlie  dumni 
ions,  the  liist  time,  we  believe,  that  a  general  scheme  ot  emaneipalidii 
Av;ts  pr«>s«'nu'd  to  iiie  iniud  of  a  P>i'itish  ministi'r  was  in  the  lM';;iiinii)jr  h: 
17tM>,  wImmi  the  measure  was  proposisl  to  Mr.  Pitt  by  Oeneral  Mira'idi. 
It  met  from  that  miiiist*  r  with  the  most  ('(U'dial  reception;  iind  a.s  tli< 
dispsite  ri'spcctiiiLT  NootkaSunnd  was  th<'i)  suhsistini;.  it  was  resolved. i! 
Spam  did  not  prevent  !iosiilitie«  by  siibmis.siun,  to  carry  the  [dan  iiit" 
imuiediatu'  execiuion. 

When  an  aeeiuiimodiiiion  was  ef(V<'t(>d  and  pi\nee  .d  last  decreed,  Mr. 
ritt  stitl  assnr^'d  tin  p'licial  (iiat  the  .s;'lienu>  o*"  euiancipatin;.;  Smitii 
America  was  a  nieasn -e  that:  wonld  not  be  h,  t  sl;?ht  of.  bnt  vamhl  iiil.!! 
lil»ly  en.:.'a^!'  the  attention  of  every  minister  of  ihis  eoin'itry. — (.See  pa;rcl !. 

'•  Doenmeuts  Histoiieid  and  lv\ph(nalory,"conferfdn;r  the  several 
IGl!0]    expeditions  of  General  *JMiraiMla,  by  T.  31.  Untepara.     ^oiidim. 

l.sio.) 


S.rtr  acts  from  J!o(hl()j''.s  Annual  Rcg'iHterfor  1R07. 

•  •  "  General  ]\Iiranda,  w itli  tln^  knovtledge  and  a  good  undti 
Ktan.iini; between  him  and  the  British  ;j(overnment,  st-t  out  from  En^ilaiij 
for  t lu  pnr[)ose  o<  (!ai  ryin}:f  into  execution,  if  possible,  his  loiig-clieri.sUed 
prvject  of  emauciimtiiiij  JSpauisu  .America. 


COUNTER   CAS^-:    OF   THE    UNITED    STATES. 


155 


Uo  pro('(H'<l{Ml  to  the  T'^iiitod  '^'^•'fps  of  Ainorifa  for  tlio  pnrposo  of  jiro- 
('iirin;i'  tli.it  Jissistanc*',  wliicli,  from  ific  assnriincc  he  liiid  received  wliilo 
ill  tliis  country,  lie  liad  evi>i\v  reason  to  expect,  piiitienlai'lv  at  a  jieriod 
wlit'ii  tiiere  was  every  pn»sp»>ct  of  a  war  lietween  the  (Tnited  States  and 
Spiiin,  on  account  of  a  dispnt*'  alioiit  lioeisiana.  IJiit  on  his  arrival  he 
li.id  tlie  niortitication  to  tiiid  that  tiie  dispute  about  Louisiana  was  (M)ni- 
lirmiuscil,  and  ihat  althou<,di  the  \ishesof  the  American,  like  those  of 
the  Ihitish  jioverninent,  wen>  foi-  him.  he  could  not  expect  their  avowed 
assistance.  The  {ieneral,  however,  animated  hy  that  perseverinj^  ar<lor 
which  is  inspired  in  jj;reat  minds  l)y  yi-eat  desij^ns,  indiu-ed,  on  terms 
•A<iivi'i\  on,  -Mr.  O^den,  a  nieirhant  of  New  Voi-k,  to  tit  out  a  ship,  the 
Lcaiulci",  ('a[)taiii  Lewis,  with  t\.(>  hundred  >ounj;'  men  of  jjreat  i'es[)0('t- 
al>ility,  who  voluntiM'ied  theii'  services,  and  to  i»roceed  with  lu^r 
|r»27]  to  St.  Dominjio  tor  tin*  purpose  of  beinji;  j(»ined  l»y  a  *second  vessel, 
the  I'lniperiM,  ccunmand.ed  l»y  another  Captain  Lewis,  brother  to 
the  iiiiister  ol'  the  Leamh-r.  riiloi tunately,  soon  aft<'r  the  dei)arturo 
lit"  the  Leander  from  N*'W  York,  the  American  (lovernment,  K'^'>'{?  ^^^'.V 
t(i  tlie  nrf;<'nt  solicitatiims  of  the  French  hud  Spanish  <'inbas-;:dors, 
liniiijilit  an  action  ajjainst  Mr.  O^deii  and  a  Colonel  Smith,  a  /•.■  ahuis 
tiit'iid  to  the  cause  of  Cn-neral  Miianda,  on  the  ph'a  that  the  equipment 
(il  the  Leander  was  unauthoii/ed  and  ille|;xal.  The  parties  pntsecuted 
were  luMiorably  ac<piitte<l.  Uiit  the  first  consetiuences  of  the  trial  wer(^ 
i't  iiiciilculable  detriment  to  (leneral  Miranda's  expedition,  for  the  master 
111  the  I'aiiperor  inninu;  heaid,  while  at  St.  I>omin;4(>,  that  an  act'  )n 
h.iil  lieen  brouj;ht  a;^ainst  tiu'  pari it-s  just  nientione<l,  absolutely  refused 
to  proceed  on  its  destination.  It  now  became  necessaiy  to  c.j;;a{;e, 
iiistt';iil  ot  the  l'anper<U',  two  small  sehouiiers.  The  •;eneral,  however, 
tlioiij^li  thus  crueliy  disappointed  in  the  expectation  of  hv\u}X  joined 
liv  till'  armed  shi[»  Kmperor,  of  jtboiit  thirty  jiuns,  pro('eede<l  with  Ins 
liitic  s(ni:i<!r(m  for  the  coast  of  <'aiacas;  where,  as  he  supposed  that 
'he  Spiinish  jiovernment  still  continued  i^^iiorant  of  his  movement,  he 
ho|M(l  to  elVt'i't  a  landin;;;  without  opposition. 

The  Spanish  embassachu',  iiowcM-r,  haviiii;-  obtained  information  of 
tliis  enteri)rise,  sent  ad\  ice  thereof  to  the  ji'overnor  of  Caracas, 
fiL'S]  wlier<'  (leneral  Miranda.  *'nstead  «if  meetin^i',  as  lu'  expected, 
Willi  none  iuit  friends.  appris4>d  ot'  his  approach,  had  the  nnntiti- 
ciitioii  to  learn  that  the  <4()vernment  of  Caracas  Inul  j^iven  the  neces- 
s;iiy  orders  for  lakinjj:  meiisnres  of  deteiise,  ami  where  his  two  schooner.s 
iinrortiiiiately  I'ell  into  the  handsof  the  Spanish  ;;iiardacostas.  In  these 
(ininiistam-est  leneral  .Miranda  sailed  directly  l«)r  Trinidad,  for  the  pur- 


itse  t»t'  procurinj 


J»ritish   auxiliary  tbrce.     Admiral  Cochrane,  then 


ntiiiiiiiiiidin^  on  the  NN'indward  station,  assured  the  j>(>neral  of  sui>p(U't, 
ill  hoth  ships  and  nies!.  and  immediately  ordered  soiim  sloops ofwar 
iiiid  gunboats  t(t  in'(  ceed  with  him  on  the  e\[»edition.  'i'hns  re  in  forced 
iit  Triiii(l;id,  tin'  general  set  sail  from  thence,  on  the  L'lth  of  .Inly,  ISOO, 
ii;,Min  lor  the  coast  of  Caiacas  with  his  little  Meet,  now  consist ini;'  of 
iilitMit  lil'teeii  ves.scls  in  all,  and  ha\  in;;'  on  board  about  live  hundred 
iilliccrs  :ind  men,  all  volunteers.  On  tlu'  nnunin^jf  of  the  I'd  of  Au;;u.st 
Ills  little  iiniy  elfe<'teil  its  landin^i'  at  a  phice  called  \'ela  de  Cm'o  ;  but 
tilt'  sMiiilliu'Ns  of  his  force  prevt'uted  contidenee  in  his  success.  The 
iH'opJc  dreaded  the  cruel  ven;;t'ance  of  the  Spanish  ;>'overnment  in  tln^ 
<\t'iit  of  his  defe  it;  and  as  the  captain-^jeneral  of  Cara<'as  was  colle<'tin;; 
tKtoj.s,  (Icueral  Miranda  retired  from  Ctu'o  and  removed  his  liead(piarters 

to  the  s!iore,havingpre\iously  assured  the  peopleinaiuoelamatiou 
;''-'•]    of  his  Just  and  friendly  inti'iitions,  ♦and  thai  "  it  was  not  in  the  city 

but  in  the  field  that  he  and  his  army  wished  to  light  with  the  op- 


f« 


'H 


^■■5 1 

i  I 

,'    i  I 

%  f 

n\ 


P'lil-' 


].')(; 


'I'lIKA'I'V    OF    WASHINGTON PAIM'.RS   ACCOMIWNVING 


4»l»>- 


l)r('ss()rs  nlono  of  tlio  ('oloiiiluiiii  ]h'o|)]('."  I'^-oiii  tliciico  (Jciicral  Miraiidi 
(lis]);itclif(l  ill)  oniccr,  Captiiiii  Lcdlic,  to  our  iiiival  and  iiiilitarv  cdim- 
iiiaiidfi's  on  tlic  -laiiiaica  station  to  iciin'sciit  liis  jiiositccts,  tiic  ait-olini. 
iH'ccssity  tlM'ic  was  for  a  fon-c  siinicicnt  to  j;iv»'  ronlidciici'  to  (lie  .Smitji 
.XiucricaM  pcojdc.  and  to  rcfpust  tliat  this  aid  nii.L;lit  Im-  sent  to  liiin 
uitlKUi!  delay.  Sir  ICyrc  Cootc  and  Adniiial  Dacics  iCjuivtU'd  that  tlicy 
wcro  jncclnclcd  IVoni  ;;i\in;;' the  as' istancc  which  his  views  deniandcii. 
as  theyliad  not  received  any  ofiieial  instinetions  from  lu)nie  on  tlii> 
sniijt'et.  Admiral  l)aeres,  however,  .uave  orders  to  his  ernisi'is  to  atVonl 
every  |»ossil)h'  inoteetion.  Cajitain  Ledlie  immediately  returiU'd  witli 
this  answer  to  (leneral  Miranihi,  who,  aft«'r  dispatehiii;^'  tliat  ollieer  in 
.Janmiea,  liatl  jjioeeeded  himself  witli  liistrooj»s  to  Arnba,  a  lew  lea^iiis 
from  \'ela  «Ie  Coro,  witii  an  intention  to  sei/e  the  slron;;  post  of  lliod. 
hii  Ilaehe.  and  tln're  await  tin*  arrival  ol  sneeor.  Soon  after  Adiniiil 
Coehram'  sent  him  a  ship  of  the  line  with  two  frigates,  with  the  riilii 
ated  assurances  of  sui>i>ort  :  Init  erroneous  leports  ha\  in,n'  reached  i!ii. 
A\'est  Indies  that   jjreliminaries  of  peace  lietween    I''n;^Iand  and  I'liiinc 

had  been  si^iu'd  by  Lauderdale  at  Pai'is.  and  these  icports  ■,{,■. 
[<!.")()]    coinpanied  with   '^au    intimation    that    Admiial   Coehram^  woiill 

eonsetpu'iitly  he  oldiucd  to  entirely  withtiiaw  the  aid  of  tln^  naval 
for«'e,  (leneral  Miranda  Ion nd  himself  under  I  he  necessity  of  al>amloiiiii,' 
all  tu  it  her  operations  on  the  Spanish  main,  and  ret  ii-ed,  wil  h  his  c(»mr;iil'- 
in  arms,  to  Trinidad. — (See  the  Annual  Ke^'ister  for  1S()7;  London,  isi" 


[<;;;i] 


*AtUnirnl  t'ochranc  tn  floirnil  MinnulK. 


.  > 


Noirrm  MUKKLAM),  ('AiM.isi.r,  IIav, 

Jliirhatlor.s,  'hint'  i),  ISllil. 

Sill:  \Vher<'as  you  ha\(>  r<'pi'esenled  to  nie  tluM,  in  carryinn'  ii. 
elfect  the  expedition  under  your  eoiumaiid.  yoii  ha\('  met  with  sniin' 
diiliciilly  from  the  defection  of  the  Ibice  you  exprctcd  to  join  at  S;. 
J>oiiiini;o;  and  co!icei\  111^' it  may  he  mutually  advanta.'Vi'ous  to  (ini' 
I'Mitain  and  tic  provinces  of  South  America,  which  you  are  about  i' 
attempt  t(»  lili'iMte  from  the  do'iiiniou  of  Spain.  ;rid  ha\!n,n"  rcccivcil 
yoiii'  sl.iiement  of  the  \aiious  plans  that,  fr(»m  tiiu'"  to  time,  ha\e  \wii 
in  aji'itatioii  between  you  and  the  llritish  ministry,  in  all  of  which  iV 
same  object  has  bi'cii  kept  in  view,  but,  fro:u  particular  ciii'Uinsi.iiif- 
incident  to  the  moment,  they  have  not  yet  bce!i  carried  into  elfcci  : 

In  eonsideratiou  thereof,  and  Jud,^iii]Lj  that   I   ma>    thcii'by   juoaii' 
\vlsat  seems  to  ha\('  commanded  the  attention  <»f  the   IJritish   ^mvi'Iii 
inenf,  1  aj^rce  to  support  your  landing  in  ioiy  part  of  America  betwiiii 
'I'rinidad  and  the  coast  opi»osite  to  the  i.s!and  of  Aruba,  with  siicli  ; 
naval  loice  as  I  can  alford,  whidi  will  beat  leas!  a  slo.ip  of  wai'  an  If 
bri;4,'s,  and  jierhaps  a  fii;4al»',  if  one  can  be  spared  from  the  at! 
|n,'?L*|    lion  I   must   necessarily  *jiive  to  the  convoys  and   iMotectinii 
the  cohtnies  within  the  district  ol'  my  commaiid.     I   do,  howt\' 
iissnrc  you  of  such  further  siii)p'-rt  as  it  may  be  in  my  power  o«'c.isi  ^ 
ally  to  jrive,  and,  siiould  a  Spanish  naval  force  arrive  in   lho.se  si'a\  1 
will  use  my  best  endeavors  to  prevent  tlii'in  doinn'  any  injury.     At  tlif 
same  time  1  am  free  to  confess  that,  while  I   ;;rant  you  su(!h  essciitini 
suppo't,  and  the  permission  you    have  received   to   reerni*    your  tout 
here  u.s  well  as  at  Trinidad,  I  do  e\|)ei't  that,  in  the  event  of  your  l''| 
in;;'  siieeessl'ul,  and   any  of  the  pi'ovinces  on  the   main  become  iinlc- 
pendent  of  Spain,  thai  you  enyagc,  in  tlunr  name,  to  y;raut  to  (IriMfi 


COUNTKII    CASH    or    TIIK    U.M'IT.I)    ST.\"n:>5. 


157 


^^ 


r,rit;iiii  i»ositi\('!y,  itiKl  to  iiootlicr  pdWiT,  (lite  I'liiTcd  Stafcs  df  Amciicii 
iitcd,  if  you  should  so  iii;'!iiii',)  tlic  saiiic  [»rivil«';4('s  of  trmlr  :is  llic 


exec 


111 


Iiiiliitiiiiis  of  tilt' siud  provinces ;  lliiil    is   to  say,  tli;i(    tlicNcssc'.s  he 
liiiiuinn  to  or  siilijccl  to  any  (Mlici'  power  or  state,  who  are  not  now  <^iv- 
ii!^  aiil  to  this  exiiedition,  shall    not   enjoy   the   same   imnmnilies  with 
(iiciil  llritain,  and  tliat  they  shall  Ite  stiliject   to  an   additional  duty  of 
iiii  per  cent,  on  all  .^oofls  that  they  either  import   (»r  e.\i»oit    o\er  and 
;il)()\('  that  to  lie  paiil  by  (iicat  Britain,  and  that   none  ol'  the  <'oaleseed 
|K\v('rs  artin^"  aijaiirst  (Ireal  r>iitain.  or  that   nnty  hereatler   heeome  so 
iliiriii;:  the  present,  war,  shall  he  permitted  to  enter  (»r   trade    with   any 
(»!'  the  jiorls  of  the  said  proviiiees  ;  that  this  a^irecnieiit  shall  sult- 
il;!,'!]    sist  and  be  *enroreed  until  a    treaty  of  eomnierce   shall   be  con- 
cluded between  (Ireaf  Ilritain  and  the  provinces  so  liberated  I'roni 
till'  Spanish   ^'ovei'nnn'nt,   lor  whieii    puri>ose   eonuni  sioners  shall  be 
iiiiiiided  by  each    party    within    tweUc   months  alter   thv   delin" c 
between  (Ireat  IWitain  and  the  jiowcrs  now  at  war  with  her  sh.dl 
be  sinned. 


iiii 


lic'.ll  V 


ll  is  I'liriaer  a.u'reeil  that  I'.rilish  sidtjeels  shall,  in  every  instance,  bo 
iisvisli  (1  by  the  ;;o\ernnu'nt  ol'  the  said  provinces  in  the  recoM'ry  of 
tlii'ir  Iej>al  and  Just  debts,  and  that,  in  security  thereof,  tlu'y  sludl  hold 
l:ii!i!s.  houscy,  or  estali'S.  under  I  he  same  pri\  ile.^is  wit  h  tin-  ualiM's  of 
I'lc  said  provinces;  and  that  they  >h;dl  be  sul'i'ered  to  sell  and  dispose 
111'  till'  said  property,  both  i<'al  and  personal,  in  liUe  manner  w  ith  them, 
;i!iil  lliat.  in  so  doin;.^',  they  shall  not  l»e  sulijtct  to  any  tax.  duly,  or  ini- 
iMisitiuii  whatever. 

It  is  also  to  be  understood  tlmt  i-oiisids  or  vice  consuls  iua.\  be  ap- 
]iiiiiit<'d  to  siH'h  piovinci's,  cities,  town-.  0<;e..  as  the  llrilish  ;;o\erument 
ii'.iiy  think  proper,  ee  •.  ;;«;i' every  pri\ile;;i'  itv  immunity  ,.ow  ^^ranted 
I'MMiasnls  belon^iii":  .'.Mi.cat   liritain   \t\  the  most    faxtuvd  nativjus  of 


.inoite 


I  have  the  luinor  to  be,  sir,  vour  nujst  obeilicnt.  humble  servant, 


Crlieral  'MllJANDA,  ((•<'..  «f' 


A.  COCIIUANl'] 


a-(\ 


(;;;i] 


flenrraJ  Mlraiuhi  to  Admind  Corhntiic. 


r>AinJAl)(tKS,  Junr  !>,  1S()<;. 
^ii;:  Travin;^' «leliberately  perused  the  foreyoin;;'  proposals,  I  hereby 
liiiiil  and  obli;;*'  niysell".  as  far  as  my  aullnuily  can  extend,  to  se(!  the 
--iiiiic  carried  into  execution  ;  and  that,  to  all  intents  aiid  pi!r|)o>es,  i-iw 
Mine  shall  be  ratilied  and  made  bindln^j^  on  tliosi-  provin<'cs  that,  nuiy 
l»t'C()iiie  independent  cd"  Spain. 

I  ha\i'  tlu'  honor  to  be,  sir,  vour  most  obedient,  huaible  serxani, 

1'.  hK  .MIKANDA. 
K'ar  Adnnral  tin'  Hon.  A.  ('(tciiiJANK, 


^1; 


:'»3j]    * E.itrtu'fH  fi'nm  the  Tt'iHtonj  ol'  Pini  l'\annti''n  tir  Mirnmhi's  attempt 
to  effect  a  revolution  in  iSoutU  Ainei'ien.     JioHlo.i,  ISOH. 

*  *  •  *  *  12th,  H  j)\*l«M'k  a.  HI. — \t  this  luoinent  aery  from  a 
man  stationed  at  1  lie  mast  liead  announces  a  sail  in  si^lit  ;  hIic  is  too 
!<ir  distant,  however,  to  eiialde  us  tt)  distiiii.iii.sh  what  kiinl  (»f  ve.ssel.    1 


f 


"A^Hh 


158 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON rAPERS    ACCOMPANYING 


iiotiec  it  crciit.'s  considnrable  anxiety  on  board,  ]>artirulaily  witli  tlie 
giMionil.  \V(*  shall  |)robal)ly  know  SDMietliinj;  nimv  of  t'lis  strauj^c  sml 
before  lonj;,  as  she  is  sailing'  nearly  in  a  line  with  ns;  is  Honu'wlmr  tn 
leeward,  bat  if  <lisposed,  may  speak  ns  in  two  or  three  bours.  1 1  o'cjoi  k 
a.  in. — Tiu^  stran;;;e  vessel  tnrns  out  to  l)e  a  larjje  v«'ssel  in  pnrsnit  of  us. 
Captain  Lewis  has  shortened  sail  to  let  her  eoine  np.  If  she  is  Ficiuii 
or  Spanisii,  she  will  probably  speak  to  ns  in  harsh  lanj;iiaj;e,  and  wc 
Nhall  be  obli;;('d  to  lij^ht.  (lod  knows  wliat  onr  fate  woidd  be  if  caii 
tared,  for  I  bili-vc  we  ninst  appear  to  tlieni  a  snspi»;ions  set,  who  ait' 
on  the  hij,'h  seas  in  a  very  qnestionabh^  shape.  If  slie  is  ICnylish,  per- 
haps "all  may  be  well.''  J  mnst  eoii(lnde,as  we  are  ^oin;;  to  pre 
[03(1]    pare  *for  action.     Onr  se  i  eonunander  says,  "If  she  is  aa  enemy 


we  must  overcome  or  pt 


lish. 


l.'Uh. — The  allair  is  settled  very  mnch  to  our  satisfaction;  bat  n^t 
without  a  tliru>and  alternate  hopes  and  fears.  Within  four  luans  altir 
my  last,  we  expccteil  to  be  now  making;  the  best  of  our  way  to  Her 
muda,  under  the  lee  of  a  Ilritish  frigate.  Yesteiday,  at  half  past  oin' 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  we  wer«' spoke  by  the  ship  s«'en  in  the  nimii- 
inj;;  she  proved  to  be  Ilis  Ilritannie  Majesty's  ship  Tlcopatra,  of  tort.v 
guns,  comnniinled  by  (^'aptain  dohn  Wi^^ht.  The  lirst  lieutenant  of  tli< 
irijiate  canu'  on  board  an«l  examined  onr  ship  and  crew.  We  wciv 
detained  iu>arly  twenty-four  hours,  an<l  had  nineteen  men  pressiil. 
mostly  Irish,  with  Ameiican  prolet-tions.  Asa  kind  of  return  for  tlir 
impressed  sailors,  we  leccived  rweh»>  Anu'ricans,  win*  had  bet-n  takni 
out  «>f  Anu'rican  vessels  lately  captui'cd  by  the  Cleopatra,  to  the  list  oi 
which  tin'  lit-andi'r  was  ni;;h  beiny  added.  Captain  Lewis  went  (iii 
board  with  the  hip's  i)apers,  which  sln)wed  her  to  be  the  Leander,  iiii 
American  ship  bound   to  St.  Donnii^t'o.    These  were,  on  exanunatioii. 

declared  by  Captain  Wij;ht  to  hi"  nnsatistaetcuw. 
[(k{7|         a  ^icntleman  then  by  the  nana'  of  Armstnaij;  *wcid  on  boiml 

with,  instructions  from  the  jicneral,  aitd  joiiic«l  witli  Lewis  in  expos 
tulatiiiM  wi*h  the  commander  of  the  fri;;ate,  but  without  cllV'ct.  At  iii>t 
the  general  himself  was  obli;>'e.l  to  appear  on  board  the  Cleopatra.  11' 
stated  certain  particulars  to  Captain  Wi;;ht,  and  showed  him  docuniciih 
which  Jnstilled  the  iai<;lisli  captain  in  allowing  our  ship  to  procetd. 
This  event  has  conlirnu-d  our  impressions  resp<>ctin<;  the  natarciiml 
objectsof  this  expedition,  (ieneral  Mirainla,  I  think,  nnist  have  etVecttil 
the  releaM«'of  the  L«'ander  by  explaining;  a  part  or  the  whole  of  his  pliii 
lelative  to  South  America,  and  b_v  prodacin^  cred«'ntials  trom  the  I'.iit 
ish  {ioverument  authori/iny,  or  at  least  i»rotectin{j;  him  in  the  nntki 
taking;. 

This  idea  i.-^  .Ntren<ithened  by  Miranda sayinj;  that  Captain  Wi<;htli;i'l 
promise«l  to  assist  in  the  enterprise.  The  jjeneral  remained  on  boani 
the  frigate  all  ni^^ht,  ar/d  retunu'd  this  mornin*;  at  eleven  o'clock.  1 
am  extri'nu'ly  jilad  we  were  ov«'itaken  by  this  ship,  tor  the  result  teniN 
to  put  ns  at  ease  alxait  the  consistency  of  our  dcsi^xn  with  the  lawsnt 
nations,  a'Ml  prov»'s  to  the  world  that  we  are  not  a  "band  of  des|K'iat' 
j>irat<'s,"a  d»scriptit)n  {jiven  to  us  by  some  persons  belbre  we  s;uled  i'n>iii 
!New  Vtnk,  and  propagated  afterwards  in  wIusimms  tiir«Hi<;h  tin'  slni'- 

lU'sides,  the  e.\pediti(Ui  is  now  place<l  (»n  a  ri'sjtm-table  foutin};  '.> 
[CIS]    *havin;i,  as  we  presume,  the  acknowh-djxment  niA  c<»nntenan(<  I't 

Kn;;land.     We  are  all  in  hijih  spirits  and  itihi^h  hopes.     TIh';:<'Ii 
oral  now  speaks  nnne  tjpenly  about  the  ente!"i>nse;   h-  exjjresst's  j.'re)»t 
anxii'ty  to  bi'gin  his  operations,  and  complain!^  of  havin;j;  been  so  !"»k; 
detained  in  a  jjoial  wind,  notwithstandinji  it  bus  tarm>d  out  so  nw 
the  advautayoof  his  project,  both  on  aucountof  the  promised  a^4si^v  .^ 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES. 


159 


ami  a  certitieato  that  he  procunMl  of  Captain  Wijjfht,  to  prevent  further 
search  or  detention  bv  «ilh«T   l>ritish  cruisers  whicli  we  may  happen  to 

meet.— (l''>fe'*"*  ^^r  11»  1-.  1^) 


j(;{0]  *(Ji{i:nada,  Maij  L'0, 1800. 

•  *  •  •  •  On  tlie  L'lth,  at  eveninj;,  we  saw  two  ves- 
sels, one  a  hirjje  .ship,  whieh  we  enth'avored  to  avoid  h\  tackinj,'  ;  hut 
tliciiexl  niornin;^  tlie  same  sliip  heiny  luiiud  in  ehase  of  us,  it  was  ic- 
sdlved  to  run  no  more.  It  was  at  leii^rth  admitted  that  we  nii^dit  as 
well  ihe  by  sword  as  famine.  WIumi  the  ship  had  ^ot  nearly  within 
;'iiiishi)t,  we  hein^  to  windward  ilid  not  bear  (h>wn,  and  siie  tired  upon 
lis.  but  without  h<'r  shot  reac-hin;:  us.  Lewis,  bein;,'  )K'rsuatbd  slie  was 
Kiijilish,  lM>ve  to  ami  slie  came  up.  St-ein*;  a  I'^reneli  disiiiijLMiishin'^ 
vane  at  her  n«ast-h»*ad,  we  iK'^an  to  llutter.  15ut  on  speai^in;;' ns,  she 
[irovetl  to  l)e  His  ISritannic  MaJ«'sty*s  sh)  >p  of  war  Lily,  wlio  liad  iteen 
tiir  soiiH'  time  searrhin;;  f«»r  the  I^eandei-.  Tlie  eommaiider,  Captain 
Caiiipbeli,  eame  on  Iwiard  to  pay  liis  eumpliments  to  (ieneral  Miranda, 
and  on  returning;  to  his  vi'ss«-l  s«'nt  us  some  most  netu  ssary  aud  most 
wclcoine  supplies.  It  was  determined  that  we  shoidd  put  in*o  tins 
isliuul,  when' we  arrivi*«I  tlie  ii*  xt  day.  Th»>  ;;eneral  and  suit*'  disrm- 
liarl\('<l  tin'  moment  tin*  ."ihip  amdiorrd  ;  ami  several  ollieeis  were  allowed 
til  step  on  t( itit  tirmn  ami  partake  the  eomlbrts  of  the  shore.  *  *  * 
Tiie  jiovcrnor  of  this  island.  Maitland,  has  reeeive<l  our  eliief  with 
::iviit  politeness  and  hospitality,  and  ^i\enhim  eneoura.i;'einent  to  cxpi'ct 
nnitortant  assistam-e  fr«»in  the  l!ritish  in  a  second  attempt   upon    the 

Spanish  main.     As  an  earnest  he  is  answei-aith'  for  our  siipplirs. 
(!K>]    •Thes«'  eirrnmstanecs  a  little  revive  the  spirits  of  our  volunt«ers, 

who  had  iMTonif  rather  sick  of  their  undertaking'  and  di>pt>sctl  to 
abandon  .Miraitda. — (Pages  lIl'-'JI.j 


Bridgetown,  Uakuadoe.s,  June  0,  ISOO. 

•  •         •  *         We  arrived  here  the  «»th.     The  rumor  amon^ 

IIS  is  such  as  to  make  ns  sup|»ose  the  expedition  is  to  raise  its  head 
aiiaiii.  Admiial  CiN-hram*,  who  is  on  tins  station  with  three  ships  of 
ilif  line  and  several  rri;;aies.  intends  to  furllu'r  it  by  jMittiii;;  .some  of 
Ills  smaller  vessels  under  the  orders  of  .Miranda.  No  rej;ular  t loops  and 
Imt  tew  volunteers  will  be  Joined  to  it  here;  but  it  is  said  they  will  be 
oliiaiiied  at  Trinidad. 

l"»tli.  It  is  reported  that  though  Admiral  (^)chrane  is  fa\orabIe,  Lord 
Stii  Mith,  pivernor  of  this  islaml.  and  (ieneral  ISowyer,  <-omiiiander  in- 
'liiti  of  the  West  India  triNips.  are  not   at  all   inclined  to  taki' iip  oiir 

iiterprise,  Tw«'nty  live  or  thirty  v<dunteers  have  joined  us  here.  In 
tills  iiiimber  may  in*  half  a  du/.<'-n  gentlemen;  the  rest,  1  fear,  mu.>r  pass 
l"!^ .4j;Hbonds„ '  •  •  •  •  *  (I'age !»."».) 


i 


•^1  •         «         •       *Admind  Co«hrane  'uidoubjedly  intended  to 

j;ive  him  all  the  ehauee  that  a  stiibcieiit  naval  force  couht  supply. 
Ill  proof  of  thiti,  .several  ariiie<(  vessi'ls,  includinj^one  seventy-four,  were 
M'lit  to  support  the  s<pi,adron  firs!  put  under  his  (jnh'rs  ami  supposed 
to  be  at  CuA,  «Uh  diiectiuuri  to  land  a  number  uf  men,  aii  they  mij^ht 


IGO 


TKKATY    OF    WAsHINGTOX I'AI'KRS    AC'COMrAXYING 


be  fouiKl  necessary  ainl  uscrul  ;  but  fiiuliii;;  lliat  we  li;nl  depjirted  in  an 
iiiiii(-<:(>iiiilabl(>  iiiaiiiici.,  tlirv  have  natiiially  (;()ii(;hi(leil  t!iat  In-  ism, 
e(|iial  to  liis  eiiiei'prisc  ami  is  not  woitli  siipportin^r.  It  is  n^t  snrprisin;; 
tiiat  llieir  okIci's  siioiild  not  extend  to  eonihietin^  liini  iVoni  one  part  in 
anotiier  ol' tile  ( 'ai  ilibcan  Sea,  oi- to  assist  in  a  second  atlenipt  i.n  tlii 
nniin  wlien  he  had  made  sueli  i\  /(tii.r  jkiu'im  thelirst.  rndonbledit  tlit-v 
are  icady  to  svi/.r  tlie  pic'.'xt  whieli  they  now  Inive  for  cbssolvinj;';, 
eonnet  lion  att«'M;!"d  witli  e\p(  nse  to  tin'  juDvei  ninent  and  nioitili«-i;titni 
to  its  pali(»ns;  satisfied  tliat  liiey  <h)  nioie  tlian  Justice  to  his  chiiiiisj;; 
cun\eyin;^  him  to  a  place  of  safety.         *  *  *  (I'age  IT'i. 


*         *         *         •         Our  reception  ami  treatnu'iit    in   this  isianii 
arc  naturally    cry  <lilfcrcnt   from  what   wc  experieiu'ed  when  we  w.i, 
hen;  iiefore.    At  tiiat  time,  mtt withstamliu;!;' the  inihuMice  of  a  nunii-niiH 
l''rench  and   Spaidsli    )»aily.  opp<ised    to  our   scheme,  of  coim-.. 
|(HL.'|    the    jnovi'rnor  «'spoused  it:  knowinij' *that   it   Inul  rcceivcil  in 
conrajicnn'id  from  hinlier  authorities  than  himself.     'J'he  ;rov»-ii: 
mod  house  w;  s  ;;ivcn  to  Miranda  for  his    icsideiice,  and  to«tU  (he  iiiiii!- 
of  headquarters.     The  ;;(»vern(»i'  and   oflicers,  civil    and  mditaiy.  i>;i.. 
him  the  respect  whicii  corresponded  lo  tlie  rank  he  claimed,     lie  i- 
cei\t'd  many  visits,  and  his  di>ii!,ii   many  f;o(»d  wishes  aud  bcnedirtin-. 
from  merchants  and  others,  thou;^h  alter  s.)me  time,  as  we  delayed  Itii,. 
tliei'c  wer(^  siyns  of  distrust  :  ami  the  jutpidarily  of  our  project  was  iin 
sufficient  to  procure  any   considi'mhle   quant  ily  of  siiitpli<'S   or  nuiiuH-. 
ol  nieu  w  it  lauil  money.     'Jlie  nn-ans  wiiicli  were  presented  to  Miraml;. 
by  the  oiler  of  meiciiants  already  mentioned.  Iir  thought   piojter  to  i 


ject. 


(I'ai 


fOir}]        *ror  c()rresj)nmle,,.'e  iclatixc  to  flic  preveidiim  in  the  port-;  : 
(lie    I'uiled  States  of  ncsscIh  allejic.l  to  be  littin;^  out  to  crii.' 
a;;ainst  the  (((innn'rce  of  l-'iance  in   lS('i,  see  vol.  7.  C'laiin.s  of  I'liitfi 
Slates  against  (Ireat  Ilrii^-jn,  i.a^cs  ;»!»-lL'. 


I 


cast:  of  Tin:  mktkoi:  and  ouikntal. 

Mr.  DlilhiHoii^  district  altornii/,  to  Mr.  Ifidiler,  Ai-titnj  Sccrtlary  of  Sh 

[rfii'^jiiiiii.i 

Ofiici:  1'mti:d  States  .AIii.iiai.'v  Ti:lk(!T?aimt. 

\V\U  I>i:pai!Taii;xt, 

Xar   lor/.,  r/aiiuorif  L'J,  1^<^'. 

Silj  :   rpiui  iid'orniatitui  ami  e\  ideiwe  furnished  by  the  Spanish  ce  r 
that  the  ship  ^leteor  is  being  lilted  (Hit,  and  is  about  to  sail  lioin  tL 
|)ort  wilii  iuten!  that  she  should  be  employed  or  cruise  in  the  servim. 
C'hili  against   the  t'ommei»;e  of  Spain,  I  have  caused   her  to  be  liht'-'l 
ami  detained,     lias  the  department  ol' State  any  suggestions  or  iu-tr^' 
lions  .' 

1).  S,  I)l(  KINSOX, 
UMitni  tStates  Dint r it t  Atturniji. 
Wm.  IFrNTKit,  Esq., 

Actiny  IScvrvtary  of  Utate. 


Tfl 


COUNTER    CASE    OF   THE    UNITED    STATES. 


Ifil 


(U4]    *^fr.  JJunter,  Acting  Si'cretnrif  of  State,  to  Mr.  JUvlinson,  tfistriit 

attorney. 

[Telefjrain.] 

AVasikxgton,  January '17i,  1800. 

I).  S.  DrCKTNSON, 

United  StateH  Atfornei/,  Nrir  YorJ,- : 
Yonr  tclt'ofrnui  of  yt'^tcnliiy  nsurlu'il  Uvvo  too  lato  in  tlio  ovciiinjjto  ho 
tlicii  aiiswcriMl.     At  pn*s«Mit  no  sii.i;;rt»stions  or  instructions   from  this 
l»i'i>iirtinent  rohitive  to  the  cas«'  of  the  .Meteor  aiv  tleenie«l  neeessarv. 

W.  HUNTKPi. 


I- 


}fr.  Dickinson,  district  attorney,  to  Mr.  Seirard,  Secretary  of  State. 

OiTicE  OF  THE  District  Attoun'ey  of  tiif.  V.  S. 

roll  THE  80UTUEU.N  Distuict  of  New  Yoijk, 

AV/r  York;  February  17,  ISOO. 

Sii: :  I  have  tlie  honor  to  report  in  the  ease  of  l>«>n.jainin  I'.  Maekenna, 
imlicted  for  a  breach  of  tlie  neutrality  laws,  (5s:c.,  that  on  the  1  Ith  instant 
lie  apiK'ared  in  court,  and,  in  the  hinjjfuajje  of  his  counsel,  •' \vaive<l  his 
tliploiiiatic  privile^^e,'"  and  ph>aded  to  the  indictnuMit  uixin  the  merits, 
h;  otiier  wonls,  lie  \vith«he\v  his  |dea  t)f  alle;;e«l  diplomatic  relations, 
wiiicli  relations  1  was  prepared  to  show  by  dot-unu-nts,  so  promptly  and 
iourte<msly  furnished  nie  from   the  ►State  Dejjartment,  had  no  e.vist- 

eiice. 
tlllj       I'iSteban   I{o<jers,  the  Chilian  consul,  indicted  *for  a  similar 

oll'ensi',  pleadetl  to  tlu^  indit^tnu'iit  without  any  su;;j;estion  of 
piivilt'^ie,  altliou;;h  at  the  tim»'  he  evidently  had  not  been  atl vised  that 
iiiscxiMpiatur  ha<l  been  revoked  by  the  President,  lloth  cases  stand 
over  for  trial  in  March  next,  and  the  delendants  have  j;i\  en  bail  for 
tiiwirai»pei'ian(!e. 

1  have  tlie  honor  to  bo,  sir,  yours,  &e. 


IIoii.  Wm.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


1).  S.  DICKINSON, 
United  States  J>istrict  Attorney. 


-m 


Mr.  Seward,  Secretary  of  Slate,  to  Mr,  Jfiekinson,  district  attorney. 

Dei'artaii:xt  of  State, 

Wasliinyton,  March  \\\,  18(50. 

Mil!:  Pursuant  to  the  ro(pu\st  ecuitaiiu'd  in  your  letter  of  yesteiday's 
'late.  1  hcivtt  ith  transmit  a  i'crtilied  copy  ot  an  t)llicial  paper  on  tile  in 
this  Dcpjiifim-iit,  relali\e  to  the  existence  of  a  state  of  war  between 
S]iiiiii  and  Chili.. 

I  am,  sir,  yours,  &c., 

WILLIAM  U.  Si: WARD. 

n.  S.  Dickinson,  Es(|., 

United  States  District  Attorney,  Xew  York. 

II  A— II 


Sim. 


1(12    TWKATV  OK  WASHINOTOX — PArKKS  ACCOMI'AXYIN(i 

Mi:  tScirdnl,  Svcvtlary  of  State,  to  Mr.  McCitlloch^  Sccntttrj/  of  Tmrnini, 

DKPAiriMKNT   OF   STATK, 

Woshinfftnit,  April  10,  Isiiil. 
SlI^:  At  the  iiistiiiico  of  Mr.  Ti»ss;ir;i,  tlio  Spiuiisli  iiiinistci.  [ 
[<I|(!|  will  tliiiiik  voii  to  rmisc  a  vessel  *eiille»l  La  Oiieiitiile,  wliieli  ism 
jtier  No.  ;>;>,  Noilli  Ifivei',  New  York,  wlii<-li  is  jhheitised  lor  ,Moii 
t«'vid<M>,  iiiid  wliieli  is  supposed  to  Im^  intended  lor  tlie  CliiliiUi  service,  to 
1>e  detained  lor  <'\ainination.  It  is  ads  isalile  that  tlie  «)rdei-  lor  tiiiv 
j»urpose  slionid  lie  sent  by  telej;rai)li,  as  the  vessel  is  to  sail  toniorniw 
or  the  day  alter. 

I  have  the  lionor  to  be,  sir,  voiirs,  iS:e., 

WILLIAM  IL  SIOWAUn. 
I  Ton.  IF.  >[crir,L(>rir, 

Sevrctary  of  the  I'reUHtirii. 


li 


]  I 


Mr.  McCiillocli,  Secretary  of  Treasury,  to  Mr.  Seward,  Seerctary  of  SUtt . 

Tkhasikv  Dkpaktmknt, 

Wash iiiy ton,  April  11,  ISIK!. 

SiK:  I  have  the  lionor  to  aeknow1ed;;(^  Ihe  ree«'ipt  of  your  (toMiiniiiii 
cation  ol"  the  KMh  instant,  reipiestin;:;  that  the  vessel  called  tiio  I,;i 
Orientale,  advertised  lor  Montevideo,  be  detained  at  New  York  for  exiiiii 
ination. 

In  accordance  with  snch  refpn^st,  the  following  teh»j;rani  was  luitli 
with  transmitted  to  the  collector  at  New  York  : 

Dilaiii  MsscI  lallcil  I.;i  Oririitiilc,  \vlii<li  is  ai  pier  Ni>.  :{:$,  Null  h  IJivcr,  and  mlv'. 
tist'd  lor  Mtiiiti>vi(li-(i,  and  awail  liiHtiiu-tioiis  from  tliis  Dfiiaitiiiciit. 

I  will  thank  yon  to  inform   me  at    the  earliest  jii-acticalih'   nioiiiciii 
hat  Inrliicr  action,  if  any,  is  re<iiiired   IVoni   this  Dcpartnu'iit  in  tlu' 


w 


f.iiTJ 


matter. 


*I  am,  yours,  i^c. 


M  ..' 


Hon.  Wm.  II.  Si;\vaim), 

Strrrtary  of'  State. 


HUdll  ^rcClTLLOCH, 

Secretary  of  the  TreaHunj, 


Mr.  Seward,  Secretary  of  Slate,  to  Mr.  htrJihison,  district  attorney. 

l)KPAUT:\rExr  of  Stati^:, 

Washinyton,  April  11,  ISIlt!. 
Sii{ :  I  inclose  a  translation  of  a  note,  of  yesterday,  addressed  totlii>j 
Deiiartmeiit  by  'Slv.  Tassara,  the  Spanish  minister  liere,  o!i  the  siili,iiTt[ 
of  a  vessel  at  New  York  called   La  (Orientale,  whi(;h,  supposinjn  iui '" 
be  intended  for  the  service  of  the  republics  of  Chili,  ho  re«]iie,sts  iiiayl'el 
detained  for  e.xamination.     The  re<inest  ha.s  been  nuule  known  t"  the 
Secretaiy  of  the  Treasury,  who  is  under.stood  to  have  (*omplied  witliitl 
You  will  cause  the  proper  examination  to  bo  made,  and  if  it  sli 


COINTKK    CASE    OK    TUK    IMTKI*    STATES. 


u;;5 


it'siilt  ill  siiMi(;i«'iit  caiisc  (licirfur,  tlio  vessel  aii«1  any  parties  eom*enieil 
limy  be  jiulicially  proceeded  ajiaiiist. 
I  am,  sir,  voiir  obedient  servant, 

Wir.MAM  II.  Si:\VAl{I». 
Dam  HI-  S.  Dickinson,  Hs<|., 

Attorurii  it/'  tlir  I'liitrtI  Statrx 

for  the  ^inithcni  Dislrict  of  Ncir  York. 


tltsj   *Mr.  Scu'ut'ti,  Sirfi'tiiri/  of  State,  to  Mr.  Tassani,  Spanixh  minister 

Dkpaktmknt  or  Siati:, 
]V(isliin(itoii,  Ajtril  II,  ISik;. 

Tlie  iiiidersi;;iied,  Heeietary  of  State  of  tlie  Cnited  States,  Ims  the 
liiiiior  t(>  aeUiiowled.^e  tlie  re('eii)t  of  Mr.  Tassara's  note  tif  yesterday's 
iliitc,  relative  to  the  vessel  called  l/i  <  )rieiitale,  and  all<';;cd  to  he  of  a 
Mis|iit'i(»iis  character,  now  lyiii;;  at  the  port  of  New  York,  and  advertisiMl 
Id  sail  for  Montevideo,  hut  really,  accordiiij;'  to  Mr.  Tassara's  belief,  for 
service  in  the  cause  of  the  Chilian  j;overiiinent. 

Ill  reply  the  nndersi;;iied  has  the  honor  to  inform  Mr.  Tassara  that 
liis  i'e(piest  for  the  detention  of  the  vessel  referred  to  until  her  real  des- 
tination can  be  made  clear  has  been  complied  with. 

Tlie  midersi^ned  olVers  to  Mr.  Tassara  on  this  occasion  renewed  assiu- 
aiices  of  his  verv  hi;4h  consideration. 

WILIJAM  H.  SIOWAIM). 

Scfior  Don  (Jahuii:!,  (Iaucia  v  Tassaha, 

tlv.,  clv'.,  ilv. 


iVl'tJ 


•GEXHKAI.  TAI'.LI-:  OF  CONTKNTS. 


Neutrality  laws  «»|'  Denmark. 

Neutrality  laws  «»l'  IMiissia. 

Neutrality  laws  of  K'nssia. 

Neutrality  laws  »)f  Netherlands. 

Neutrality  laws  of  Sweden. 

Neutrality  proclamations,  «S;c.,  oi'  Ura/il. 

-Meiiioranda  relative  to  Miranda  J^xpedition. 

Case  of  the  Meteor  and  Oriental. 


;iM(),  G.-)!]  •TilE  MICKCIIANT  SIIiri'INtJ  ACT,  ISJl. 

[Kxtiuc'tsa] 

ANNO  IlKCIMO  SKI'TIMO  KT  DKriMO  OCTAVO  VIC TOIO.K  inua.V.r.. 

C'liAp.  CIV, — AN  ACT  to  imu'iid  iiiid  coiisolidiito  flic  acts  leluting  in  iiurohaut-slrip 

]iiiig. — [Kt  August,  ldr)4.] 

1.  This  act  may  be  cited  for  all  imrposes  as  "The  Merchant  Shippiiiij 
Act,  1854." 


i 


f9mf 


rwp 


164 


TUKATV    OF    \VASHI\({T(>\ — I'AI'KIJS    ACCOMPAXVING 


<»»• 


I 

i 
'I 
ii. 

■-+ 


L'.  Ill  tlic  const riK't ion  siikI  lor  the  purposes  of  tliis  :ict  (if  not  iiicon 
sistnit  witli  tli4'  contrxt  or  suliji'ct  iiiiittrr)  tlit>  following  ti'iiiis  simli 
liavt' tlic  K-sjicctivt;  iiieaiiiii^s  liciviiiiiftcr  assigiiiMl  to  tlieiii ;  tliatiistn 
sa  V  :•♦•••  \ 

••Tlic  tn'a.siir,v"  shall  iiicaii  tlie  ('oiiimissioiu'is  of  Ilcr  >rajt'sty's  tr('ii> 


urv, 


'^  Tlic  ailiiiiraltv''  shall  mean  the  lord  liiuh  admiral  or  tht;  (*( 


Mllllllv 

sioiicis  for  c.xcciitiny  his  olVicc. 

'•  The  lioani  of  tiinlc"'  shall  mean  the  lords  of  the  t'ommittci^  of  piiw 
coniicil  appointed  for  thcconsidcrat'on  of  matters  rclatin<;  to  traiU' aiil 
foreign  plantations. 

{*>'>-]  <!.  The  hoanl  of  trade  sliall  he  the  department  *to  nn«leitiiki 
the  geiieval  siiperintendeiiee  of  matters  relating  to  inerehant  .s|ii|i> 
and  seamen,  and  shall  he  anthori/ed  to  carry  into  execution  the  inovis. 
ions  of  this  act,  and  of  all  other  acts  relating  to  merchantships  aiiil 
seamen  in  force  foi  the  time  being,  other  than  such  acts  as  relate  tn 
the  revenue.     »     *     #     #     * 

IL'.  All  consular  oflict'is,  and  all  ollicers  of  customs  abroad,  and  all 
local  mariiu'  boards  and  shipping  masters  shall  make  aiMl  send  to  tin' 
board  «>f  trade  such  returns  or  reports  on  aii.v  matter  relating  to  r>iiti>li 
merchant  shipping  or  seamen  as  such  board  icipiircs;  and  all  shippin; 
masters  shall,  whenever  rcipiircd  by  the  board  of  trade,  pro«luce  to  smh 
board  or  to  its  olhccrs  all  olhcial  logbooks  and  other  documents  wliith. 
in  pursuance  of  this  act,  are  delivered  to  lliem. 

1.'5.  1C\  cry  ollicer  of  the  board  of  trade,  and  every  commissioned  onicci 
of  any  of  Her  Majesty's  ships  on  lull  pay,  and  every  llritish  c(nisiilai 
ollicer,  and  the  registrar  geiu'ral  of  seamen  ami  his  assistant,  and  even 
chii'f  ollicer  of  customs  in  any  phu'c  in  Ilcr  Majesty's  iloininions,  ami 
i'Very  ship|ting  master  may.  in  cases  \vher«'  hehasreas(Ui  to  suspect  that 
the  provisioiis  of  this  act  or  the  laws  for  the  time  being  relating  to  iiici 
chant  seamen  and  to  navigation  are  not  complied  with,  exercise  the  Ibl 

lowing  yctweis,  that  is  to  say: 
[(i.".'5|         *lle  may  rccpiire  tlu'  owiu-r,  master,  or  any  of  the  crew  of  any 
Ibitish  siiip  to  i)roduce  any  ollicial  log-books  or  other  docuini'iii* 
relating  to  such  cvcw  or  any  luembcr  thert'of  in  their  respci-tive  i 
si(m  or  cont lol. 


KiSS 


Me  may  reipiiic  any  such  master  to  |>roduce  a  list  of  all  persons  m 
board  his  ship,  and  take  <'ttpics  of  such  ollicial  logbooks,  or  docuinoiits 
or  of  any  part  theicof. 

Jle  may  muster  the  crew  of  any  such  ship. 

lie  imiy  summon  the  mastt-r  to  appear  and  give  any  explanation  ciiii 
ceiningsuch  ship  or  her  crew,  ov  the  saitl  ollicial  logbooks  or  dociimciitv 
And  if.  upon  re(piisiti(m  duly  made  by  any  person  so  anthori/ed  in  tliiit 
behalf  as  aforesaid,  any  person  refuses  or  neglects  to  jiroduce  any  siuli 
<tirN'ial  log  book  or  document  as  he  is  liereini)efore  reipiircd  to  protliici', 
or  to  allow  the  same  to  be  inspe(tted  ov  (M)pied  as  aforesaid,  or  impi'dos 
any  such  muster  of  a  crew  as  aforesaid,  or  refuses  or  neglects  to  give 
any  explanation  which  he  is  hereinbelbre  re(piire<l  to  give,or  knowiii 
misleads  or  deci.'ives  any  perstui  hereinbefore  authorized  to  demand  any 
.«!uch  »'X[)lanalion,  he  shall  lor  each  such  ollense  incur  a  [lenalty  not  ox 
ceeding  twt'iity  pounds. 

If.  The  board  of  trade  may.  from  time  to  time,  whenever  it  seems  on 
pcdient  to  them  so  to  do,  appoint  any  i)ersoii  as  an  ins[)ect(»i',  tn 
[054]     report  to  *them  upon  the  following  matters;  that  is  to  say  : 

(1.)  Upon  the  nature  aud  causes  of  any  accident  or  daiuago? 


iilV 


rorXTKR   CASK    OF   TirK    rXITKl)    STATKS. 


IHo 


wiiicli  iuiy  ship  has  siistaiiM'd  or  caiisod,  or  is  alh'^jcd  to  have  .siistaiiM'd 
iir  cinist'd. 

(j.)  Whether  the  provisions  of  tliis  act, or  any  regulations  made  under 
(d'hy  virtue  of  this  act,  have  heeii  eoniplietl  with. 

(.1.)  Whether  the  hidl  and  niaehinery  of  any  steainsliip  are  snlliiMent 
and  ill  ii^Mil  condition. 

I'».  I']very  suc.li  inspector  as  aforesaid  sliall  have  tlie  foMowin;:^  pow- 
ris;  tliat  is  to  say  : 

1.)  He  may  j;:o  on  l)oard  any  ship,  and  may  inspect  the  same  or  any 
part  tlierecd",  or  any  of  the  machinery,  l»aats,  equipments  or  artich's  on 
liKMid  tiier(M)f  to  wliich  tiie  provisions  of  this  act  apply,  not  unnecessa- 
rily dcfainin;;  or  delayin;;  lu-r  from  proccedin;^  on  any  voyajj^e. 

L'.)  Il(^  may  entt'r  and  inspcuit  any  premises  the  entry  «m'  inspection 
(il  wliich  appears  to  him  to  he  reipiisite  for  the  purpose  of  tlie  report 
wliicii  lie  is  directed  to  make. 

.{.)  lie  may,  hy  siimnnnis  under  his  hand,  require  tlu^  attemlance  of 
ill  siicli  persons  as  he  thinks  tit  to  call  before  him  and  examine  for 
viiili  purpose,  and  may  re(|uire  answers  or  returns  to  any  inquiries  he 

thinks  tit  to  make. 
ilMJ       (i.)  He  may  re(piire  and  enforce  the  production  of*all  hooks, 
papers  or  documents  which  he  considers  important  for  such  pur- 


\\m\ 


').)  lie  may  a<lminist«'r  oaths,  or  may,  in  lieu  of  rcipiirin;;'  or  admin- 
>t('iiii<,'  an  oath,  re(pure  every  persim  examined  hy  him  to  make  and 


isciilie  a  <leclaratiou  of  the  truth  of  the  stateineiiLS  made  by  him  in 


>ii 


liisexiiiiiination. 


And  every  witness  so  summoned  as  aforesaid  shall  b(^  allowed  sncli 
i\l»(Mis('s  as  would  b»'  allowed  to  any  witness  attending;  on  subp(ena  to 
!.'iu' eviden(;e  In'fore  any  court  of  record,  or  if  in  Scotland,  to  any  wit- 
ness nttcndin;;' on  (Mtation  the  {!ouit  of  Justiciary  ;  ami  in  case  of  any 
ili"*|iiitt'  as  to  the  amount  of  such  expenses  the  same  shall  be  n'feri'ed  l»y 
ilic  inspector  to  (»ne  of  the  niast«'rs  of  Her  Majesty's  Court  of  (^)iiet'n*s 
r.t'iicii  in  I']n^Iand  or  Ireland,  or  to  the  (^)ueeirs  and  lord  treasurer's 
itiiii'iiibrancer  in  Scotland,  who,  on  a  r«'(piest  made  to  him  lor  that  pur- 
jMisc  under  the  hand  of  the  said  inspector,  shall  ascertain  and  certify 
the  proper  amount  of  such  expiMises;  and  eveiy  person  who  refuses  to 
iticiid  as  a  witness  before  any  siudi  inspector,  after  having  been  re- 
i|iiir('(l  so  to  do  in  the  manner  hereby  directed,  and  after  liavinj;"  had  a 
tt'iidcr  made  to  him  of  the  expenses,  if  any,  to  wliich  heis«Mititlcd  asafore- 
said,  or  who  refuses  or  nc};lects  to  mak(>  any  answer,  or  to  yive  any 
ii")ti)  return,  nv  to  pi-oduce  any  document  in  his  possession,  or  *to  make 
or  subscribe  any  ilectlarations  which  any  such  inspector  is  hereby 
iiiipdwei'ed  to  retpiire,  shall  for  each  such  offense  incur  a  penalty  not 
i\c('('diii<>- ten  pounds. 

111.  Kvery  i)erson  who  willfully  impedes  any  such  ins|>ector  api)oiiite<l 
''V  tlic  board  of  trade,  as  aforesaid,  in  the  execution  of  his  duty,  wlie- 
tlii'ion  board  any  ship  or  elsewliere,  shall  incur  a  penalty  not  exceed- 
ing ten  pounds,  and  may  be  seized  and  detained  by  such  insiiector  or 
'IIk'I'  person  or  by  any  i»erson  or  persons  whom  he  may  call  to  his  as- 
■istaiicc,  until  such  otfender  can  be  coMr  .'u^'ntly  taken  before  some  jus- 
ite  of  the  peace  or  other  ollieer  having  pro;.er  jurisdiction.        *         * 

DESCRIPTION  AND  OWNKUSII'  •  ul     IIIMTISII  SHU'S. 

!*<.  Xo  ship  shall  be  deemed  to  be  a  I'rirish  ship  unless  she  belougs 
i^vliolly  to  owners  of  the  loUowing  description  ;  that  is  to  say  : 


•ii: 
.  ii 


.  i 


■c 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


fe 


{./ 


A 


f/. 


V] 


^^ 


7. 


■cir^^>^' 


^;^^ 


1.0    If:"^  IM 


'■  11^ 


|3.6 


I.I 


12.0 


1.8 


1-25      1.4     11.6 

■• 6" 

► 

Hiotographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STCEST 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  USaO 

(716)  872-4503 


w. 


V  MP, 


<? 


(A 


2a 


■  1  V  rtl 


;•  ti- 


m 


I- 


fr. 


16G 


TlfKATY    OF    WASIIINGTOX — rAl'EKS    ACCOMPANYING 


(1.)  Niituiiil-bora  British  subjects : 

i'lovidt'd  that  no  natural-born  subject,  who  has  taken  the  oath  of  al 
legiance  to  any  f'oreijiu  sovereiyu  or  state,  shall  be  entitled  to  be  sudi 
owner  as  aforesaid,  unles  he  has,  subsequently  to  taking  such  lastiiicii- 
tioned  oath,  taken  the  oath  of  allej'iance  to  Her  JNIajesty,  aiul  i.s  and 
contiiuu'S  to  be  durinj;'  the  whole  jx'riod  of  his  so  being  an  owner 
|(m7]  resident  in  souu;  i)lace  within  Her  Majesty's  dominions  ;  *or  if  not 
so  resident,  member  of  a  Ibitish  factory  or  i)artner  in  a  liouse 
actually  carrying  on  business  in  the  United  Kingdom  or  in  some  otiiei 
place  within  Her  Majesty's  dominion. 

(L*.)  Persons  made  denizens  by  letters  of  denization  or  naturalized  hy 
or  pursuant  to  any  act  of  the  imperial  legislature,  or  by  or  pursuant  to 
any  act  or  ordinance  of  the  proper  legislative  authority  in  any  lUitish 
possession : 

Provided,  that  such  persons  are  and  continue  to  be  during  tin;  whole 
period  of  their  so  being  owners  resident  in  some  i)lace  within  ller  Ma- 
jesty's dominions;  or  if  not  so  resident,  mend)ersof  a  British  factory  or 
])artners  in  a  house  actually  carrying  on  business  in  the  United  Kin};- 
doni  or  in  some  other  place  within  Her  Majesty's  dominions,  and  iiave 
taken  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  Her  Majesty  subsequently  to  the  period 
of  their  being  so  made  denizens  or  naturalized. 

(3.)  Bodies  corimrate  established  under,  subject  to  the  laws  of,  and 
having  their  principal  i)lace  of  business  in  the  United  Kingdom  or  some 
British  possession. 

19.  Every  British  ship  must  be  registere<l  in  manner  hereinafter  men- 
tioned, except — 
[(j5S|  (1.)  Ships  duly  registered  before  thisi  act  conies  *into  operation. 
(L*.)  Ships  not  exceeding  fifteen  tons  burden  enqjloyed  soleyiii 
navigation  on  the  rivers  or  coasts  of  the  United  Kingdom,  or  on  the 
rivers  or  coasts  of  some  British  j)ossession  within  which  the  managing 
owners  t)f  such  ships  are  resident. 

(3.)  Shipsnotexceedingthirty  tens  burden,  and  not  having  a  wholeoi 
lixed  deck,  and  enii)loyed  solely  in  lishing  or  trading  coastwise  on  the 
shores  of  Newfoundland  or  [)arts  adjacent  thereto,  or  iii  the  Gnlf  of  St, 
Lawrence,  or  on  such  portions  of  the  coasts  of  Canada,  Nova  Scotia,  or 
New  Brunswick  as  lie  bordering  on  such  gulf. 

And  no  ship  hereby  recpured  to  be  registered  shall,  unless  registered, 
be  recognized  as  a  British  ship;  and  no oflicer  of  customs  shall  giant 
u  clearance  or  transire  to  any  ship  hereby  required  to  be  registered  lor 
the  purpose,  of  enabling  her  to  proceed  to  sea  as  a  British  shii),  unless 
the  master  of  such  ship,  upon  being  required  so  to  do,  produces  to  liim 
such  certificate  of  registry  as  is  hereinafter  n^entioned ;  and  if  sueli 
vsliip  attempts  to  jiroceed  to  .sea  as  a  British  ship  without  a  clearance  or 
transiie,  such  ollicer  may  detain  such  ship  until  such  certiticate  is  pro 
duced  to  him.  *  *  *  *  , 

liJ).  The  commissioners  of  customs  may,  with  the  .sanction  of 
[009]  the  treasury,  appoint  such  persous  to  *superintend  the  survey  ami 
admeasurement  of  ships  as  they  think  tit ;  and  may,  with  the  ap 
proval  of  the  board  of  trade,  make  such  regulations  for  that  purposi'ii^ 
may  be  necessary ;  and  also,  with  the  like  approval,  make  such  niodili- 
cations  ami  alterations  as  from  time  to  time  become  necessary  in  the  ton- 
nage rules  hereby  prescribed,  in  order  to  the  more  accurate  and  unil'orin 
application  the'eof,  and  the  ettectual  carryiug  out  of  the  principle  ot| 
admeasurement  therein  adopted. 


COUNTKR    CASE    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES. 


1G7 


REGISTRY   OF   URITISH  SHU'S. 


30.  Tlio  followiiij?  |»ersoiis  are  required  to  reyiister  British  ships,  and 
shall  be  deemed  rej-istrars  for  the  purposes  of  this  a(!t;  that  is  to  say: 

(1.)  At  any  port  or  other  phice  iu  the  [Inited  Kiiig(h)m  or  Isle  of  Man 
approved  by  the  eouiinissiouers  of  customs  for  the  re<;istry  of  ships,  the 
collector,  comptroller,  or  other  principal  ollicer  of  customs  for  the  time 

beiiis- 

(2.)  \\\  the  islands  of  Guernsey  arul  Jersey,  the  i)rinci|)al  ofllcers  of 
Her  ^liijesty's  customs,  to<>ether  with  tlie  governor,  lieutenant-j-overnor, 
or  other  person  administering"  the  government  of  such  islands  respect- 
ively. 

(,'!.)  In  !\[alta,  Gibraltar,  and  Heligoland,  the  governor,  lieutenant- 
jjovenior,  or  other  persou  administering  the  government  of  such  places 
respectively. 

(4.)  At  any  port  or  ])lace  so  approved  as  aforesaid  within  the 

[(JGOJ    limits  of  the  charter  but  not  under  the  *government  of  the  East 

India  Company,  and  at  which  no  custom-house  is  established,  the 

collector  of  duties,  together  with  the  governor,  lieutenant-governor,  or 

otiier  person  administering  the  government. 

(.").)  At  the  portsof  Calcutta,  Madras,  and  lionibay,  the  master  attend- 
ants, and  at  any  other  port  or  place  so  api)roved  as  aforesaid  within  the 
limits  of  the  charter  and  under  the  government  of  the  Eas^  India  Com- 
pany, the  collector  of  duties,  or  any  other  jierson  of  six  yeirs  standing 
iu  tlie  civil  service  of  the  said  company  who  is  appointed  by  any  of  the 
governments  of  the  said  company  to  act  for  this  puri)ose. 

(tj.j  At  every  other  port  or  i)lace  so  approved  as  aforesaid,  within  Her 
)Iiijesty*s  dominions  abroad,  tlie  collector,  comptroller,  or  other  principal 
otlicer  of  customs,  or  of  navigation  laws;  or  if  there  is  no  such  oliicer 
resident  at  such  port  or  jilace,  the  governor,  lieutenant-governor,  or 
(itlier  person  administering  the  government  of  the  possession  in  whicli 
such  port  or  place  is  situate. 

ol.  The  governor,  lieutenant-governor,  or  other  person  administering 
the  government-,  in  any  British  possession  where  any  ship  is  registere<l 
under  the  authority  of  this  act  shall,  with  regard  to  the  ]>ertorm- 
[OOlj  ance  of  any  act  or  thing  relating  to  the  *registry  of  a  ship  or  of 
any  interest  therein,  be  considered  in  all  respects  as  oc<'upying 
the  place  of  the  commissioners  of  customs;  and  any  British  consular 
otlicer  shall,  in  any  place  wh.'re  there  is  no  Justice  of  the  jteace,  be  au- 
thorized to  take  any  declaration  hereby  recjuired  or  permitted  to  be  made 
in  the  presence  of  a  justice  of  the  [)eace.  #  #  #  # 

3.1  Every  api)lication  for  the  registry  of  a  shij)  shall,  in  the  case  of  in- 
tlividuals,  be  made  by  the  person  re<]uiring  to  be  registered  as  owner,  or 
l»y  some  one  or  more  of  such  persons,  if  more  than  one,  or  by  his  ov  their 
tluly  authorized  agent,  and  in  the  case  of  bodies  corimrate,  by  their  duly 
authorized  agent;  the  authority  of  such  agent,  if  appointed  by  individ- 
uals, to  be  testitied  by  some  writing  under  the  liaiuls  of  the  ai>i)ointers, 
and  if  appointed  by  a  body  corporate,  by  some  instrument  under  the 
eouunon  seal  of  such  body  corporate. 

3G.  lJef(»re  registry,  the  ship  shall  be  surveyed  by  a  person  duly  ap- 
pointed under  this  act,  and  such  surveyor  shall  grant  a  certiticate  in  the 
jlonu  marked  A,  in  the  schedule  hereto,  s|)ecifying  her  tonnage,  build, 
JHiiu  such  other  particulars  descriptive  of  the  identity  of  the  ship  as  may 
jhoni  time  to  time  be  required  by  the  board  of  trade;  iinO  such  certiti- 
Uate  shall  be  delivered  to  the  registrar  before  registry. 


tr 


A- 


:<ttf 


M 


•'i'k 


;i;fi''  '.' 


1G8 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON — PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 


'.    Al':V. 


llV.  '■ 


E'i.'ii 


m 


ril ' « 


[GC3]       37.  Tlift  following  rnlos  shall  be  observed  with  *iespect  to  en- 
tries in  the  re/:>ister  book;  that  is  to  say: 

(1.)  The  i)roperty  in  a  shi[)  shall  be  divided  into  sixty-fonr  shares. 

(2.)  Subject  to  tlie  i)rovisiona  with  respect  to  joint  owners  or  owners 
by  transmission  hereinafter  contained,  not  more  than  thirty-two  individ. 
ujils  shall  be  entitled  to  bo  rej;istered  at  the  same  time  as  owners  ot 
any  one  ship;  but  this  rule  shall  not  affect  the  beneficial  title  of  imy 
number  of  persons,  or  of  any  company  repre.sented  by  or  claiming  iiiukt 
or  through  any  registered  owner  or  joint  owner. 

(.'3.)  No  person  shall  be  entitled  to  be  registered  as  owner  of  any  frac 
tional  part  of  a  share  in  a  ship,  but  any  number  of  persons,  not  exceed- 
ing five,  may  be  registered  as  joint  owners  of  a  ship,  or  of  a  share  or 
shares  therein. 

(4.)  Joint  owners  shall  be  considered  as  constituting  one  person  only 
as  regards  the  foregoing  rule  relating  to  the  nun»ber  of  persons  entitled 
to  be  registered  as  owners,  and  shall  not  be  entitled  to  dispose  in  sev- 
eralty of  any  interest  in  any  ship,  or  in  any  share  or  shares  therein,  in 
respect  of  wliich  they  are  registered. 

(5.)  A  body  cori)orate  may  be  registered  as  owner  by  its  corporate 
name. 
[GG3J  38.  No  person  shall  be  entitled  to  be  registered  *as  owner  of  a 
ship,  or  any  share  therein,  until  he  has  made  and  subscribed  a 
declaration  in  the  form  marked  B,  in  the  schedule  hereto,  referring,'  to 
the  ship  as  described  in  the  certificate  of  the  surveyor,  and  containing 
the  following  particulars;  that  is  to  say : 

(1.)  A  statement  of  his  qnalilication  to  be  an  owner  of  a  share  in  a 
British  ship. 

(2.)  A  statement  of  the  time  when  and  the  place  where  such  ship  was 
built,  or  (if  the  ship  is  foreign-built,  and  the  time  and  place  of  building 
not  known)  a  statement  that  she  is  foreign-built,  and  that  he  does  not 
know  the  time  or  place  of  her  building  ;  and,  in  addition  thereto,  in  the 
case  of  a  foreign  ship,  a  statement  of  her  foreign  name,  or  (in  the  case 
of  a  ship  condemned)  a  statement  of  the  time,  place,  and  court  at  and 
by  which  she  was  condemned. 

(3.)  A  statement  of  the  name  of  the  master. 

(4.)  A  statement  of  the  number  of  shares  in  such  ship  of  which  he  is 
entitled  to  be  registered  as  owner. 

(5.)  A  denial  that,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  and  belief,  any  un- 
qualitied  person  or  body  of  persons  is  entitled  as  owner  to  any  legal  or 

beneficial  interest  in  such  ship,  or  any  share  therein. 
[G64j  The  above  declaration  of  ownership  shall  be  *made  and  sub- 
scribed in  the  presence  of  the  registrar,  if  the  declarant  reside 
within  five  miles  of  the  custom-house  of  the  i)ort  of  registry,  but  if  beyond 
that  distance,  in  the  presence  of  any  registrar  or  of  any  justice  of  the 
peace.  ##**«*» 

40.  Upon  the  first  registry  of  a  ship  there  shall,  in  addition  to  the 
declaration  of  ownership,  be  produced  the  following  evidence;  that  is  to 
say : 

(1.)  In  the  case  of  a  British-built  ship,  a  certificate  (which  the  builder 
is  hereby  re(piired  to  grant,  under  his  hand)  containing  a  true  account 
of  the  proper  denomination  and  of  the  tonnage  of  such  ship  as  estimated 
by  liim,  and  of  the  time  when  and  of  the  place  where  such  ship  was 
built,  together  with  the  name  of  the  party  (if  any)  on  whose  account  lie 
has  built  the  same;  and,  if  any  sale  or  sales  have  taken  place,  the  bill  or 
bills  of  sale  under  whioU  tho  ship,  or  share  therein,  has  baeoma  vested 
in  the  party  retpiiriuy;  to  be  registered  as  owner, 


COUNTER   CASE    OF   THE    UNITED    STATES. 


169 


(2.)  Ill  the  c.Tse  of  a  foreign-built  ship,  the  same  evidence  as  in  the  case 
of  ii  British-built  ship,  unless  the  person  requiring  to  be  registered  as 
owner,  or,  in  the  case  of  a  body  corporate,  the  duly  appointed  officer, 
(ieclares  that  the  time  or  place  of  her  building  is  unknown,  or  that 
MiJ]  the  builder's  certitieate  cannot  be  procured,  in  which  *case  there 
shall  be  required  only  the  bill  or  bills  of  sale  under  which  the 
ship  or  share  therein  became  vested  in  the  party  requiring  to  be  regis- 
tered as  owner  thereof. 

(3.)  In  the  case  of  a  ship  condemned  by  any  cop^.petcnt  court,  an  offi- 
cial copy  of  the  condemnation  of  such  ship. 

41.  If  any  builder  willfully  makes  a  false  statement  in  any  certificate 
hereby  required  to  be  granted  by  him,  he  shall,  for  every  such  otfense, 
iucur  a  penalty  not  exceeding  one  hundred  pounds. 

42.  As  soon  as  the  foregoing  requisites  to  the  due  registry  of  a  ship 
have  been  complied  with,  the  registrar  shall  enter  in  the  register-book 
the  (ollowing  particulars  relating  to  such  ship ;  that  is  to  say : 

(1.)  The  name  of  the  ship  and  of  the  port  to  which  it  belongs. 

(2.)  The  details  as  to  her  tonnage,  build,  and  descrii)tion  cojnprised  in 
the  certificate  hereinbefore  dire(jted  to  be  given  by  the  surveyor. 

(3.)  The  several  particulars  as  to  her  origin  stated  in  the  declaration 
or  declarations  of  ownership. 

(4.)  The  names  and  descriptions  of  her  registered  owner  or  owners, 
aud  if  there  is  more  than  one  such  owner,  the  i)roportions  in  which  they 
are  interested  in  such  ship.  *  #  *  * 

[CGG]  44.  Upon  the  completion  of  the  registry  of  any  *ship,  the  regis- 
trar shall  grant  a  certificate  of  registry  in  the  form  marked  D,  in 
the  schedule  hereto,  comprising  the  following  particulars ;  that  is  to  say  : 

(1.)  The  name  of  the  sliip  and  of  the  port  to  which  she  belongs. 

(2.)  The  details  as  to  her  tonnage,  build,  and  description  comi)rised  iu 
the  certificate  hereinbefore  directed  to  be  given  by  the  surveyor. 

(3.)  The  name  of  her  master. 

(4.)  The  several  particulars  as  to  her  origin  stated  in  the  declaratiou 
or  declaraiions  of  ownership. 

(5.)  The  name  and  descriptions  of  her  registered  owner  or  owners, 
and  if  there  is  more  than  one  such  owner,  the  proportions  in  which 

they  are  respectively  interested  indorsed  upon  such  certificate. 

«  #  «  «  #  *  * 

53.  If  any  registered  ship  is  either  actually  or  constructively  lost,  taken 

Ity  the  enemy,  burnt,  or  broken  up,  or  if  by  reason  of  a  transfer  to  any 

jiersoiis  not  qualified  to  be  owners  of  British  ships,  or  of  any  other 

matter  or  thing,  any  such  ship  as  aforesaid  ceases  to  be  a  Britisli  ship, 

every  person  who  at  the  time  of  the  occurrence  of  any  of  the  aforesaid 

events  owns  such  ship  or  any  share  therein  shall,  immediately  upon 

obtaining  knowledge  of  any  such  occurrence,  if  no  notice  thereof  has 

already  been  given  to  the  registrar  at  the  port  of  registry  of  such 

I'iOT]    ship,  *give  such  notice  to  him,  and  he  shall  make  an  entry  thereof 

in  his  register-book  ;  and,  except  in  cases  where  the  certificate  of 

jiOKlstry  is  lost  or  destroyed,  the  nuister  of  every  ship  so  circumstanced 

iif'afoivsaid  shall  immediately,  if  such  event  occurs  in  port,  but  if  the 

I  !>aine  occurs  elsewhere,  then  within  ten  days  after  his  arrival  in  port, 

Uieiiver  the  certiflcato  of  registry  of  such  ship  to  the  registrar;  or,  if 

{there  be  no  registrar,  to  the  British  consular  officer  at  such  i)ort,  and 

li'ueh  registrar,  if  he  is  not  himself  the  registrar  of  her  port  of  registry, 

or  such  British  consular  officer,  shall  forthwith  forward  the  certificate 

["o  delivered  to  him  to  the  registrar  of  the  i)ort  of  registry  of  the  ship  ; 

and  every  owner  and  master  who,  without  reasonable  cause,  uudies  default 


"  :  i 


vi  ■ 


170 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON PAPERS    ACCOMPANYING 


in  obeyinj?  the  provisions  of  tins  se(!tion,  isliall  for  each  offense  incur  a 
penalty  not  exceeding  one  iiundred  ponnds. 


[COS] 


*CEUTIFirATES   OF   MOUl'GAGE   AND   HALE. 


7().  Any  registered  owner,  if  desirous  of  «lisi»osin8:  by  way  of  niortsiigo 
or  sale  of  the  ship  or  share  in  lespect  of  wiiieh  he  is  registered  at  any 
place  out  of  the  country  or  possession  in  which  the  port  of  rc'gistry  of 
such  ship  is  situate,  may  a[)[>iy  to  the  registrar,  who  shall  thereupon 
enable  him  to  do  so  by  granting  such  4;ertilicates  as  are  hereinaltci 
mentioned,  to  be  called,  respectively,  (!ertiticates  of  mortgage  or  ccitili- 
cates  of  sale,  according  as  they  purport  to  give  a  pov  r  to  mortgage  or 
a  j)o\ver  to  sell. 

77.  Previously  to  any  certificate  of  mortgage  or  sale  being  granted, 
the  applicant  shall  state  to  the  registrar,  to  be  by  him  entered  in  the 
register-book,  the  following  particulars;  that  is  to  say: 

(1.)  The  names  of  the  jjcrsons  by  whom  the  power  mentioned  in  siidi 
certificate  is  to  be  exercised,  and  in  tlu^  case  of  a  mortgage  the  maxi- 
mum amount  of  chaige  to  be  created,  if  it  is  intended  to  fix  any  such 
maximum,  and  in  the  case  of  a  sale  the  minimum  price  at  winch  a  siile 
is  to  nuide,  if  it  is  intended  to  fix  any  such  minimum. 

(2.)  The  spe(!ific  place  or  places  where  such  power  is  to  be  exercised. 
or  if  no  place  be  specified,  then  that  it  may  be  exercised  any- 
[GG9J    where,  *subject  to  the  provisions  hereinafter  contained. 

(o.)  The  limit  of  time  within  which  such  jmwer  may  be  exer- 
cised. 

78.  No  certificate  of  mortgage  or  sale  shall  be  granted,  so  as  toautlior- 
ize  any  mortgage  or  sale  to  be  made  ; 

At  any  i)lace  within  the  United  Kingdom,  if  the  port  of  registry  of 
the  ship  be  situate  in  the  United  Kingdom  ;  or  at  any  place  within  the 
same  Brithh  possession  if  the  port  of  registry  is  situate  within  a  Brllhk 
possession ;  or, 

By  any  person  not  named  in  the  certificate. 

70.  Certificates  of  mortgage  and  sale  shall  be  in  the  forms  marked 
respectively  M  and  N,  in  the  schedule  hereto,  and  shall  contain  a  state 
nient  of  the  several  particulars  hereinbefore  directed  to  be  entered  in 
the  register- book,  and  in  addition  thereto  an  enumeration  of  any  reg 
istered  uu)rtgages,  or  certificate  of  mortgage,  or  sale  affecting  the  ship 
or  shares  in  respect  of  which  such  certificates  are  given. 

81.  The  following  rules  shall  be  observed  as  to  certificates  of  sale ;  tliiit 
is  to  say  : 

(10.)  If  the  ship  is  sold  to  a  party  not  qualified  to  be  the  owner  of  a 
British  ship,  the  bill  of  sale  by  which  the  ship  is  transferred,  the  corti- 
ficate  of  sale,  and  the  certificate  of  registry  shall  be  produced  to 
[670J  some  registrar  or  consular  officer,  *  who  shall  retain  the  certificates 
of  sale  and  registry,  and,  haviiig  indorsed  thereon  the  fact  of  such 
ship  having  been  sold  to  persons  not  (pialified  to  be  owners  of  Bnthk 
ships,  shall  forward  such  certificates  to  the  registrar  of  the  port  appear- 
ing on  the  certificate  of  registry  to  be  the  port  of  registry  of  such  ship; 
and  such  last-mentioned  registrar  shall  thereupon  make  a  memorandum 
of  the  sale  in  his  register-book,  and  the  registry  of  the  ship  in  such  book 
shall  be  considered  as  closed,  except  so  far  as  relates  to  any  uusatisfled 
mortgages  or  existing  certificates  of  mortgage  entered  therein. 

11.  If,  upon  a  sale  being  made  to  an  unqualified  person,  default  is 
made  in  the  production  of  such  certificates  as  are  mentioned  in  the  last . 
rule,  such  uuqualifled  person  shall  be  considered  by  BriUsh  law  as  hiiv- 


f^ 


COUNTER    C'A8E    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES. 


171 


ill"  acqnii'od  no  title  to  or  interest  in  the  sliii);  and,  fiirtlier,  the  party 
111)011  whose  iip[>liciition  snch  certifteato  was  <>rante(l,  and  tlie  pci'soii.s 
( u'lrisiufi'  the  power,  shall  each  incur  a  penalty  not  exceeding  one  hun- 
dred pounds. 

!)4.  Every  rpj.istrar  iu  the  United  Kin;i;don.  shall,  at  the  expi- 
[IhI]  ration  of  every  'uonth,  ami  *every  other  re;;istrar  shall  without 
delay,  or  at  such  .  'ated  times  as  may  be  fixed  by  the  conimission- 
H'sof  <!Ustonis,  transMiit  to  the  eustomhotise  in  London  a  fall  return,  in 
>iK'li  form  as  they  may  direct,  of  all  rejL!,istries,  transfers,  tiansinissions, 
liiDitjra^jes  and  other  dealinjis  with  ships  which  have  been  registered  by 
111  coinnnuiicated  to  them  in  their  character  of  re;:^istrars,  an<l  the  names 
(if  the  jH'rsons  who  have  been  concerned  in  the  same,  and  such  other 
piuticulars  as  may  be  directed  by  the  said  commissioners. 

NATIONAL   CIIARACTEK. 

102.  Xo  officer  of  customs  shall  j^rant  a  clearance  or  transire  for  any 
slii|)  until  the  master  of  such  ship  lias  declared  to  sueli  ollicer  the  name 
of  the  nation  to  which  he  claims  that  she  belon<>s ;  and  such  ollicer 
simll  thereupon  inscribe  such  name  on  the  clearance  or  transire.  And 
if  any  ship  attempts  to  proceed  to  sea  without  sui-h  deai-ance  or  trans- 
ire, any  such  officer  may  detain  her  until  such  «leclaration  is  made. 

103.  The  offenses  hereiimfter  mentioned  shall  be  punishable  as  fol- 
lows, that  is  to  say: 

(1.)  If  any  person  uses  the  IJritish  flag  and  assumes  the  British  national 
character  on  board  any  ship  owned  iu  whole  or  in  ]»art  by  any 
[iJlL*]  persons  *not  entitled  by  law  to  own  liritish  ships,  for  the  i)urpose 
of  making  such  ship  appear  to  be  a  Ibitish  ship,  such  ship  shall 
be  forfeited  to  Her  ■Majesty,  uidesssuch  assumption  has  been  made  for 
tlie  piujjose  of  escaping  capture  by  an  enemy,  or  by  a  foreign  ship  of 
war  iu  exercise  of  some  belligerent  right;  ami  in  any  proceeding  for 
eiitorcing  any  such  forfeiture  the  burden  of  proving  a  title  to  use.  the 
liritish  flag  and  assume  the  British  national  character  shall  lie  upon 
the  person  using  and  assuming  the  same. 

(1*.)  If  the  master  or  owner  of  any  British  ship  does  or  permits  to  be 
(lone  any  matter  or  thing,  or  carries  or  permits  to  be  carried  any  pa- 
pers or  documents  with  intent  to  conceal  the  British  character  of  such 
sliip  from  any  person  entitled  by  British  law  to  inquire  into  the  same, 
or  to  assume  a  foreign  character,  or  with  intent  to  deceive  any  such 
person  as  lastly  hereinbefore  mentioned,  such  ship  shall  be  forfeited  to 
iler  Majesty  ;  and  the  njaster,  if  he  commits  or  is  privy  to  the  com- 
liiission  of  the  offense,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdeujeanor. 

(•').)  If  any  unqualitied  person,  except  iu  the  case  of  such  transmitted 

interests  as  are  hereinbefore  mentioned,  acquires  as  owner  any  interest, 

either  legal  or  benetieial,  in  a  ship  using  a  liritish  flag,  and  as- 

[073]  sumi'iig  the  British  character,  such  interest  *shall  be  forfeited  to 

Her  Majesty. 

(4.)  If  any  person,  on  behalf  of  himself  or  any  other  person  or  body 
I  of  persons,  willfully  makes  a  false  declaration  touching  the  qualitication 
lit  himself  or  such  other  person  or  body  of  pt.'sons  to  own  British  ships 
or  any  shares  therein,  thedeclarant  shall  beguilty  of  a  misdemeanor ;  and 
the  shii»  or  share  in  respect  of  which  such  declaratioii  is  made,  if  the 
hame  has  not  been  forfeited  under  the  foregoing  provision,  shall,  to  the 
I'xtent  of  t  he  interest  therein  of  the  person  making  the  declaration,  and  un- 
less it  is  shown  he  had  no  authority  to  make  the  same  of  the  parties 
on  hehalf  of  whom  such  declaration  is  made,  be  forfeited  to  Her  Ma- 
jesty. 


S'^ 


■  ,.( 
■'■^"M 


|F 


\  .  : 


•:<M»' 


i    ,       , 


172 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON' PAPERS   ACCOMPAXYIXG 


And  in  order  tbat  the  al)Ove  provisions  as  to  forfeitures  may  be  car- 
ried into  effect,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  any  eoniniissionetl  ofljeer  on  tuH 
pay  in  the  military*  or  naval  service  of  Her  Majesty,  or  any  Uritish  oi- 
ticer  of  customs,  or  any  BritUh  consular  officer,  to  seize  and  detain  any 
ship  which  has,  either  wholly  or  as  to  any  share  therein,  l>ecomc  suhjt^-t 
to  forfeiture  as  aforesaid,  and  brin;;  her  for  adjudication  l)efore  the 
high  court  of  admiralty  in  EiujUm^l  or  Irtlnnd  or  any  court  having' 
admiralty  jurisdiction  in  Uer  Majesty's  dominions:  and  such  court  ui;iy 
thereuiion  make  such  order  in  the  case  as  it  may  thi!ik  fir.  ainl 
[C74J  m.iy  award  to  the  offi*cer  brinjfinj^  in  the  same  for  adjuditaiiitii 
such  portion  of  the  proceeds  of  the  side  of  any  forfeited  ship  or 
share  as  it  may  think  right. 

104.  ^o  such  officer  as  aforesaid  shall  be  responsible,  eithtr  civilly 
or  criminally,  to  any  person  whomsoever,  in  resjiect  of  the  s«'izure  or  de- 
tention of  any  ship  that  has  been  seized  or  detained  by  him  in  puisii 
ance  of  the  i)rovisions  herein  contained,  notwithstanding  that  such 
ship  is  not  brought  in  for  adjudication:  or.  if  so  brf>ught  in.  is  dedan-il 
not  to  be  liable  to  forfeiture,  if  it  is  shown  to  the  s;itisfaction  of  tbc 
judge  or  court  Ijefore  whom  any  trial  relating  to  such  ship  or  such 
seizure  or  detention  is  held  that  there  were  reasonable  gionnds  for  smh 
seizure  or  detention  ;  but  if  no  such  grounds  are  shown,  such  jud^e  »r 
court  may  award  payment  of  costs  and  damages  to  any  party  aggrieve*!, 
and  make  such  other  order  in  the  premises  as  it  thinks  just. 


[G75J 


•SHEPPrXG-OFFICES. 


!No.  122.  In  every  sea-iwrt  in  the  United  Kingdom  in  which  there  i> 
a  local  marine  board,  such  Iwjard  shall  establish  a  shipping-office  or 
shipping-offices,  and  may,  for  that  pnri>ose,  subject  as  herein  mentioiiwl. 
l)roeure  the  requisite  premises,  and  appoint,  and  from  time  to  time 
remove  and  re-appoint,  suwrintendents  of  sucli  offices,  to  be  calletl  shii>- 
ping:inasters,  with  any  necessary  deputies,  clerks,  and  servants,  ami 
regulate  the  mode  of  conducting  business  at  such  offices,  ami  shall.  ;>uit- 
ject  as  herein  mentioneil,  have  complete  control  over  the  sitme :  ami 
every  act  done  by  or  before  any  deputy  duly  apiwinted  shall  have  the 
same  effect  as  if  done  by  or  Ijefore  a  shipping-master. 

No.  123.  The  sauction  of  the  board  of  trade  shall  l>e  necessary,  so  far 
as  regards  the  number  of  persons  so  ap[>ointetl  by  any  sneh  Uxral  marine 
board,  and  the  amount  of  their  salaries  and  wages  and  all  other  es- 
l)enses;  and  the  board  of  trade  shall  have  the  imme«liate  control  of 
such  shipping-offices,  so  far  as  regards  the  receipt  and  ]»ayment  oJ 
money  thereat ;  and  all  shipping-masters,  deputies,  clerks,  and 
[C7CJ  servants,  so  ap|)ointed  as  aforesiiid,  •shall,  before  entering  upon 
their  duties,  give  such  security  (if  any)  for  the  due  i>erfonuance 
thereof  as  the  board  of  trade  requires:  and  if  in  any  case  the  Iwanl  of 
trade  has  reason  to  believe  that  any  shipinng-master,  deputy,  clerk,  or 
servant  appointed  by  any  locjil  marine  l»oard  does  not  proi»erly  discharge 
his  duties,  the  board  of  trade  may  cause  the  case  to  be  investigate<l. 
and  may,  if  it  thinks  tit  so  to  do,  remove  him  from  his  office,  and  may 
provide  for  the  proi>er  i)erformance  of  his  duties  until  another  i»erson  is 
properly  appointeil  in  his  place. 

No.  121.  It  shall  be  the  general  business  of  shipping- masters,  aiv 
pointed  as  aforesiiid — 

To  afford  facilities  for  engaging  seamen  by  keeping  registries  of  tbeir 
names  and  chanicters ; 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES. 


173 


'.i. 


to  bogiu 


To  su|HTinteiHl  and  faiilitate  t!ioir  engagement  and  discharge  in  nian- 
im  heieinatter  nientioned  ; 

To  provide  means  lor  securing  the  presence  on  board  at  the  proper 
times  ot  men  who  are  so  engaged  ; 

To  facilitate  the  making  of  apprenticeships  to  the  sea  .ser\ice; 

To  perform  such  other  duties  relating  to  merchant  seamen  and  mer- 
cbaiit  ships  as  are  hereby,  or  may  hereafter,  under  the  jiowers  herein 

contained,  be  coinmitte<l  to  thenu 
(377]  •Xo.  14'.>.  The  master  of  every  ship,  except  ships  of  less  than 
eighty  tons  registered  tonnage,  exclusivly  employed  in  trading 
iK^twcen  iliticrent  ports  on  the  coasts  of  the  United  Kingdom,  shall  enter 
into  an  agreeuMMJt  with  every  seaman  whom  he  carries  to  sea  from  any 
jMiit  ill  the  United  Kingdom  as  one  of  his  crew  in  the  manner  hereinaf- 
id  mentioned  :  and  every  such  agreement  shall  be  in  a  form  sanctioned 
1>y  the  lM)ard  of  trade,  and  shall  be  dated  at  the  time  of  the  first  signa- 
ture thereof,  and  sludl  Ix*  signed  by  the  master  before  any  seaman  signs 
tlie  siiiie.  and  shall  contain  the  following  particulars  as  terms  thereof; 
tbat  is  to  say  : 

1.!  The  nature,  and.  as  far  as  practicable,  the  duration  of  the  intended 
vdvage  or  engagement. 

1'.)  Tiie  number  and  description  of  the  crew,  specifying  how  many 
are  eiigage^l  as  sailors. 

i:3.i  The  time  at  which  each  seaman  is  to  be  on  board  or 
work. 

(4.)  The  capacity  in  which  each  seaman  is  to  serve. 

(.").)  The  amount  of  wages  which  each  seaman  is  to  receive. 
i]7Sj       *(♦>.)  A  scale  of  the  ])rovisions  which  are  to  be  furnished  to  each 
seanmn. 

1 7.)  Any  regulations  as  to  conduct  on  board,  and  as  to  fines,  short 
allowance  of  provisions,  or  other  lawful  punishments  for  misconduct, 
rliicU  have  been  sanctioned  by  the  boar(i  of  trade  as  regulations  proper 
to  \)Q  adoi>ted,  and  which  the  parties  agree  to  ado[>t. 

And  every  such  agreement  shall  be  so  framed  as  to  admit  of  stipula- 
tious,  to  be  adopted  at  the  will  of  the  master  and  seamen  in  each  case, 
.'.s  *•»  advance  and  allotment  of  wages,  and  may  contain  any  other  stipu- 
lations which  are  not  contrary  to  law:  Provided,  That  if  the  master  of 
aiiv  ship  belonging  to  any  British  possession  has  an  agreement  with  his 
crew  made  in  due  form  according  to  the  law  of  the  possession  to  which 
sncU  ship  belongs  or  in  which  her  crew  were  engaged,  and  engages  sin- 
gle seamen  in  the  United  Kingdom,  such  seamen  may  sign  the  agree- 
ment so  made,  and  it  shall  not  be  necessary  for  them  to  sign  an  agreement 

in  the  form  sanctioned  by  the  board  of  trade. 
•i71»]       'No.  loO.  In  the  case  of  all  foreign-going  ships,  in  whatever 
part  of  Her  Majesty's  dominions  the  same  are  registered,  the  fol- 
lowing rules  shall  be  observed  with  respect  to  agreements ;  that  is  to 
say : 

(1.)  Every  agreement  made  in  the  United  Kingdom  (except  in  such 
cases  of  agreements  with  substitutes  as  are  hereinafter  speciallj'  pro- 
viileti  for)  shall  be  signed  by  each  seaman  in  the  presence  of  a  shipping- 
master. 

■-'.)  Sucli  shipping-master  shall  cause  the  agreement  to  be  read  over 
and  explained  to  each  seaman,  or  otherwise  ascertain  that  each  seaman 
understands  the  same  before  he  signs  it,  and  shall  attest  each  signature. 

(3.)  When  the  crew  is  first  engaged  the  agreement  shall  be  sign'id  in 
'luplicate,  and  one  part  shall  be  retained  by  the  shipping-master  and  the 
other  part  shall  contain  a  special  place  or  form  for  the  descriptions  and 


m 


174 


TIJE.VTV    OF    WASHINGTOX r.VPEKS    ACCOMrAXYIXG 


ir 


si;rnatnr<'s  of  substitutes  or  porsons  ou^Myctl  subscfiucutly  to  tlio  fus- 

(U'piirtun*  of  tlH>  ship,  aiul  sliiill  he  dcliviMcd  to  tiic  luiistcr. 
[C80]  •(4.)  lu  tlic  Cijsc  of  sul)stitut('s  cu^jufii'*!  in  tln'  place  of  scannn 
who  li;\v«*  iluly  siy:m'<l  the  a<>i«'emtMit,  iiu<l  whose  services  juv  i,,,: 
within  t\v«'ntv-f«»ur  hours  of  the  ship's  puttiii*!;  to  sea,  l>y  «h'atli.  (|cs,.| 
ti(»ii.or  oilier  unforeseen  cause,  the  en;;a<;enu'nt  siiall,  when  piacticiilii,., 
l>e  nnule  hefoie  some  shipi)in;4:-iMastei'  <luiy  appointed  in  tin*  iiiaiiiitr 
herein Itefoie  specilied  ;  and  wlu'uever  such  last  inentioiu'd  eu^fa^iciiicnt 
cannot  l»e  so  niad«',  the  master  shall,  helbre  the  ship  juits  to  sea,  irpim, 
ticable.  and  if  not,  as  soon  afterward  as  possible,  cause  the  js^ireeiiunttu 
be  read  over  and  e\plaine«l  to  the  s<'ainen  ;  and  the  seanu'n  shall  tliciv 
upon  si;;n  the  same  in  the  presence  of  a  witness,  who  shall  attest  tlnir 
sijrnatui'cs. 

i«»S.  AH  stipulations  for  the  allotnuMd  of  any  i)art  of  ihe  waycs  of  a 
seaman  durin,y:  his  absence,  which  are  made  at  the  ccunnuMU'einciit  m 
the  voyajie,  shall  be  inserted  in  the  ayieenu'ut,  an<l  shall  state  tW 
amounts  and  times  of  the  i)ayuuMJts  to  be  made;  and  all  allotment  iiott< 
shall  be  in  tbrnis  sanctioned  by  the  board  of  trade. 


M' 


Hi- 


8 

Ji 

J 

¥" 

St     - 

^P 

f<- 

^  - 

ihi  ' 

*, 

t# 

[GSl] 


*TnE  CUSTOMS  CONSOLIDATION  ACT,  1853. 


ANNO   DKCniO   SEXTO   ET   DEflMO   SEPTIMO  VICTOUI.K  UEGIX.E. 

Cat.  CVII. — AX  ACTtoaiiicinl  .nnd  oniisolidatc  tlie  laws  rcL'.tiiifjto  ttio  ciisfoinsot'tli' 
L'liittil  Kiii;i<l"iii  and  tlio  Islo  of  Man,  and  ccitain  laws  it'lating  to  trade  aiitl  navi- 
gatiuu  and  tlio  IJiilisli  posst'ssions. — [Anj;ust  '20,  I8'i'.\.'] 

******* 

XIII.  The  commissioners  of  customs  umy,  from  time  to  time,  byonkr 
under  their  hainls,  appoint  stationsoridaees  for  ships  arriving  at  or  (lopiiit 
in<r  from  any  port  or  place  to  brin<>-  to  for  the  boarding  or  lan(liii;.Mt 
otiicers  of  the  customs,  and  may  also  api)oint  ]>laces  to  be  suHt'iaiKT 
wharves  Ibr  the  lading  and  unlading'  of  goods  by  sufferance,  in  siith 

cases,  under  such  restrictions,  and  iu  such  manner  as  they  sliall 
[6S2]    see  tit,  and  nuiy  *also  direct  at  what  particular  part  or  parts  di 

any  harbor,  dock,  quay,  or  other  place  in  any  port,  ships  ladni 
with  to'»acco  or  auy  particular  cargo  shall  nutor  and  <lischargo  siiili 
cargo:  an»l  the  couunissiouers  of  custouis,  or  thecoUector  or  comptroller 
of  any  iH>rt  under  tluMr  directions,  may  station  officers  on  board  am 

ship  while  within  the  limits  of  aay  port  iu  the  United  Kiugdoai. 

•  ♦  *"#  *  #  * 

LII.  Tlie  captain,  master,  i)urser,  or  other  person  having  the  cliarse 
of  any  stiip  (having  commission  from  Her  Majesty,  or  from  any  forei;ii 
state)  having  on  board  any  goods  laden  in  parts  beyond  the  seas,  shal 
on  arrival  at  any  port  iu  the  United  Kingdom,  aud  before  auy  parttfj 
such  goods  be  taken  out  of  such  ship,  or  when  called  upon  so  to  do  by 
any  officer  of  the  customs,  deliver  an  account  in  writing,  under  his  liaiul 
to  the  best  of  his  knowledge,  of  the  quality  and  quantity  of  every  pack- 
age or  parcel  of  such  goods,  and  of  the  marks  and  numbers  tliereou, 
and  of  the  names  of  the  respe(!tive  shippers  aud  consignees  of  the  same, 
aud  shall  make  and  subscribe  a  declaration  at  the  foot  of  such  accouut,  1 
declaring  to  the  truth  thereof,  and  shall  also  truly  answer  to  the  col 
lector  or  conii)troller  such  questions  concerning  such  goods  as  shall  be  | 
required  of  him,  and  on  failure  thereof  of  such  captain,  master, 
[083]    xjurser,  or  other  person,   shall  forfeit  the  sum  of  one  huu'dred 


COrXTER    CASE    OF    THE    TXITTID    STATES. 


175 


i)ttiiii(ls:  Mild  all  such  ships  s1i;ill  lie  lialtlo  to  such  soiirclu's  iis  mer- 
(•li;iiitslii|>s  JUT  liiildr  to,  siixl  tlir  olliccrs  of  tlu'  ciisttiiiis  may  iVct'ly 
(iittT  ainl  j;o  oil  lioiiiil  all  such  sliiits  ami  luiij^  from  tlu'iicc  oil  shore 
into  the  (Queen's  warehouse  any  {^oods  Couml  on  board  any  such  ship  as 
iitmcsaitl,  siihjcct,  iicv«'rthclcss,  to  such  ic};iihitions  in  rcspc<'t  of  sliips 
of  war  hcloiijrinj;  to  Ilcr  Majesty  as  shall,  from  time  to  time,  he  directed 
ill  tliiit  respect  hy  the  commissioners  of  Her  ."Nrajesty's  treasury. 

As  to  the  exportation  an<l  entry  of  {joods,  and  the  clearance  of  ships 
tioiii  the  L'nited  Kingdom  to  parts  beyond  the  seas: 

CXVIII.  Tlu'  master  of  evt'iy  ship  in  which  any  jjoods  are  to  be  ex- 
iioited  from  the  Unit«'d  Kingdom  to  parts  beyond  the  seas,  or  hisn^jeiit, 
sliall.  before  any  ^'oods  be  taken  on  board,  deliver  to  the  collector  or 
(diiiptroller  a  eeriihcate  froi'i  the  proper  otlieer  of  the  due  clear  UKte 
inward  «>r  coastwise  of  such  ship  of  her  last  voyajic,  and  shall  also 
(li'liver  therewith  an  entry  outward  of  siurli  ship,  verilied  by  iii.«,  sijjna- 
tiire.  in  the  followinji-  form,  or  to  the  same  etl'ect,  and  containing 
(H4]  the  several  particulars  *indi(;ated,  or  reipiired  thereby:  ♦  *  ♦ 
And  if  su<*h  ship  shall  have  commenced  her  lading'  at  some  other 
pDit,  the  master  shall  deliver  to  the  searcher  the  clearance  of  such 
;;(i()(ls  from  such  other  i>ort ;  and  if  any  goods  be  taken  on  b«>ard  any 
sliip  at  any  port  before  she  shall  have  entered  outwards  at  such  port, 

iiiiU'ss  a  stitteniiifr  order,  when  necessary,  shall  be  is'Sued  by  the  proper 
olliccr  to  lade  any  heavy  goods  for  exportation  on  board  such  shii),)  the 

master  shall  forfeit  the  sum  of  one  hundred  pounds. 

«  *  *  *  *  *  * 

CXXVI.  The  shipping  bill  or  bills,  when  tilled  up  and  signed  by  the 
txiiorter  or  his  agent,  or  the  consignee  of  the  ship,  as  the  case  may  be, 
ill  such  manner  as  the  proper  oflicer  may  require,  and  countersigned  oy 
till'  searcher,  sliall  be  the  clearance  for  all  the  goods  enumerated  therein; 
:iii(l  if  any  of  such  goods  shall  consist  of  tea,  spirits  or  tobacco,  the  ex- 
jiorter  or  his  agent  shall  furnish  to  the  searcher  an  account  thereof, 
ciiiitaiiiing  the  number  and  description  of  the  packages,  and  the  respect- 
iv(Minantities  contained  therein,  which,  when  certitie«l  by  the  searcher, 
shall  accompany  the  ship,  and  have  the  same  force  and  ettect  as  the 
coiket  in  use  i)rior  to  the  passing  of  this  act ;  and  if  the  exporter  or  his 
iiireii':  shall  require  a  similar  certiticate  in  resj)ect  of  any  other  goods 

shipped  f«)r  exportation,  the  searcher  shall,  on  its  being  pre- 
[liSj]    *sented  to  him  for  that  purpose,  certify  the  same  in  like  manner: 

Prorided  alirays,  That  if  any  such  certificate  be  re«piired  to  be  in 
itiiy  particular  form  for  jjoods  destined  for  the  Zollverein  or  any  other 
foreign  state,  or  under  the  name  of  "cocket,"  such  certiticate  ma^^  be  so 

prepared  and  denominated. 

*****  •  * 

As  to  the  shipping  of  stores  for  the  use  of  foreign-bound  vessels: 
CXL.  The  master  of  every  ship  of  the  burden  of  lifty  tons  or  upwards, 
departing  from  any  port  in  the  United  Kingdom  upon  i^  voyage  to  parts 
beyond  the  seas,  the  duration  of  which  out  and  home  shall  not  be  less 
tliau  forty  days,  shall,  upon  due  ap])lication  made  by  him,  and  upon  such 
terms  and  conditions  as  the  commissioners  of  customs  may  direct, 
receive  from  the  searcher  an  order  for  the  shipment  of  such  stores  as 
may  he  required  and  allowed  by  the  collector  or  comptroller  for  the 
Hse  of  such  ship,  with  reference  to  the  number  of  the  crew  ami  passen- 
gers on  board  and  the  probable  duration  of  the  voyage  on  which  she  is 
about  to  depart;  aud  all  demauds  for  such  stores  shall  be  made  la  such 


w 

■  u- 

-■1  ' 
.   'i 

1 

't' 

%■ 

I'  t-A 


l\^ 


;  I 


M 


hr 


I  !  ■ 


i 


m 

liili 


17G 


TIIEATV    OF    WASIIIXGTON PAl'KRS   ..CCOirAXYIXO 


form  and  inannor  as  sneli  colloctor  or  coiuptrolk'r  sliall  rciiniic,  aiid 
Kliall  hv  siffiKMl  by  the  master  or  owium"  of  tlic  vessel;  iiiid  niter 
[GSO]  sneli  stores  are  •duly  sliipped  the  master  or  his  a^eiit  simll  nmi^,. 
out  an  account  of  the  stores  so  shipped,  topjetlier  with  any  othir 
stores  tlien  already  on  board,  and  the  same,  when  presented  to  tlic 
searcher,  signed  by  him,  and  coJintersiy:ned  by  tlie  colIe(;tor  or  «()iii||. 
troller,  sliall  be  the  victnalin;i^  bill;  and  no  stores  shall  be  shipped  idf 
the  use  of  any  ship,  nor  any  articles  taken  on  board  any  ship  be  tltiiiitil 
to  be  stores,  except  such  as  shall  be  borne  upon  such  victualin^j;  bill. 

As  to  the  clearance  of  ships  outwards: 

CXiil.  If  there  be  on  board  any  ship  any  jjoods,  beiiif?  part  of  fli(> 
inward  carjjo  reported  for  exportation  in  the  same  sliip,  the  iiiastcr 
shall,  i»efore  clearance  outwards  of  such  ship  from  any  i>ort  in  the 
United  Kiuf^dom,  deliver  to  the  searciu^r  a  copy  of  the  report  inwards 
of  such  j^oods,  certitted  by  the  (collector  or  comptroller;  and  if  such 
copy  be  found  to  correspond  with  the  {joods  so  remaining;  on  board,  tln' 
searcher  shall  s^\gu  the  same,  to  be  filed  with  the  certilicates  or  cockcts, 
if  any,  and  victualing  bill  of  the  ship. 

CXLII.  Before  any  ship  shall  be  cleared  outwards  from  the  Uiiitcij 
Kingdom  with  any  goods  shippe<l  or  intended  to  be  .shijjptMl  n'l 
[G87]  board  the  same,  the  master  shall  deliver  a  cor  tent  of  such  *siii|i 
to  the  searcher,  in  the  form  or  to  the  effect  following,  and  contain 
ing  the  several  particulars  therein  required,  as  far  as  the  same  can  lie 
known  by  him,  and  shall  make  and  subscribe  the  declaration  at  the  font 
thereof,  in  the  presence  of  the  collector  or  comptroller,  and  shall  answer 
such  questions  as  shall  be  demanded  of  him  concerning  the  ship,  tlie 
cargo,  and  the  intended  voyage,  by  sucl'  collector  or  comptroller. 

And  before  clearance,  the  certiiicatcs,  if  any,  shall  be  delivered  tn 
the  searcher,  who  shall  compare  the  shippingbills  with  the  contentsaml 
certilicates,  if  any,  and  file  such  certificates,  copy  of  report  inwaids,  ji 
any,  of  goods  reported  for  exportation  in  such  ship,  and  the  victualin,' 
bill,  witli  ft  label  attached  and  sealed  thereto,  in  the  form  or  to  tlie 
eft'ect  following: 

[seal.] 

Number  of  certificates,  (numbers  in  figures.) 

Ship,  (name  of  ship.) 

Master,  (name  of  master.) 

Date  of  clearance. 

(Signature.)    


(Signature.) 


Searcher: 


Collector  or  Comptroller. 
And  such  label,  when  filled  up,  and  signed  by  the  seardier 
[688]  and  the  collector  or  comptroller,  shall,  *as  to  the  goods  comprisiil 
therein,  be  the  clearance  and  authority  for  the  departure  of  tlie 
ship;  and  the  shipi)er  of  any  British  goods  and  such  goods  as  were  pie 
viously  chargeable  with  duty  at  value  laden  in  such  j?l»ip  shall,  uiuki  a 
penalty  of  twenty  pounds,  deliver  to  the  broker,  agent,  or  other  person 
clearing  such  sliip,  a  duplicate  of  the  bill  of  lading  thereof  at  the  time 
of  signing  thereof,  with  au  indorsement  thereon  of  the  quantity  and 
value  of  such  goods,  and  such  broker,  agent,  or  other  person  as  afoic 
said,  shall,  within  fourteen  days  after  such  tinal  clearance  of  the  sbip, 
sign  and  deliver  to  the  collector  or  comptroller  of  customs  a  fall  aud 
accurate  list  of  all  such  goods,  with  the  quantities  and  value  thereof, 
from  the  bills  of  lading  so  delivered  to  him,  with  such  bill  or  bills  of  lading 
annexed  thereto,  and  on  failure  thereof,  such  broker,  agent,  or  other 


COIINTEU    CASK    «H'     IIIK    IMTKI*    STATKS. 


177 


iHMsoii  iis  atot'csaiil,  Nliall  tort'cit  thu  sum  of  twenty  ])oun(ls,  and  lor  thiN 
|)ur|)0Hi>  the  dnitlitnitc  liiU  of  lailin;>-  so  i-iM|nii-(Ml  sliall  not  lie  liable  to  any 
.stamp  duty. 

OXIdll.  ir  any  ^oods  liable  to  duty  on  inipoitution,  or  taken  ironi 
the  Wiireliouse  to  be  exported  or  entitled  to  drawback  on  exportation, 
wliicli  are  enumerated  in  the  contents  of  any  ship,  shall  not   be 
(iS'.IJ   didy  shippiMl  betbre  the  departure  of  such  *ship,  or  shall  not  bo 
duly  (tertitled  l)y  tlie  proper  (dlicer  as  short  shipited,  such  jjoods 
sliall  be  ibrfeited;  or  if  any  .su(di  }><)ods  shall  In;  tak(>n  on  board  such 
ship,  not  bein^  enunu>rated  in  such  content,  th(>  master  of  siudi  ship 
sliall  Ibrfeit  the  sum  of  live  pounds  in  respect  of  every  paitkaj^ni  of  such 
limiU;  and  if  any  p:oods  duly  shi])ped  on   board  such  ship   shall  be 
l;iii(l('(l  at  any  other  place  than  that  for  which  they  shall  have   been 
cleared,  unless  otherwise  ac(;ounted  tor  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  com- 
missioners of  customs,  the  master  of  such  ship  shall  forfeit  a  sum  equal 
t(i  treble  the  value  of  the  floods  so  landed. 

(JXLIV.  If  any  goods  shall  l»e  ship]>ed,  put  olf,  or  water-borne  to  be 
shipped,  without  beinj;  duly  cleared,  or  otherwise  contrary  to  the  i)ro- 
visions  of  this  act,  the  same  shall  be  liable  to  Ibrleiture. 

(!XIiV.  IJelbre  any  ship  shall  depart  in  ballast  from  the  United  King- 
dom for  jiarts  beyond  the  seas,  not  having  any  goods  on  boari)  •'  au'pt 
stoms  from  the  warehouse  borne  upon  the  victualing  bill  of  such  sl/ip, 
iioraiiy  goods  rei)orte<l  inwards  tbrex|»ortation  insuch  shii),  the  collector 
Ml  ((tiiiptioller  shall  clear  such  sliip  in  ballast  by  notifying  such  clearance 
iiiid  the  ilate  thereof  on  the  victualing  bill,  ami  <leliver  the  s  "le  to  luc 
master  of  such  ship  as  the  clearance  thereof,  and  the  master  of  such  ^l^il> 
shall  answer  to  tl;r  'wllector  or  comptroller  such  (pu»stions  tofh- 
jilliO|  iiig  *her  departure  and  <lestination  as  shall  be  demanded  ol  him  ; 
and  ships  imving  oidy  passengers  with  their  baggage  on  IxianI, 
;ii!(l  .slii|)s  laden  only  with  clndk  or  slate,  shall  be  <leemed  to  be  in  bal- 
last ;  and  if  any  such  shij),  whether  laden  or  in  ballast,  shall  depart 
without  being  so  cleared,  if  she  have  any  such  stores  on  board,  the 
master  shall  forfeit  and  pay  the  sum  of  one  huudre<l  pounds. 

As  to  the  boarding  of  ships  after  clearance  outwards: 

(JXLVI.  Any  officers  of  customs  may  go  on  board  any  ship  after 
clearance  outwaid  within  the  limits  of  any  port  in  the  United  Kingdom, 
or  within  four  leagues  of  the  coast  thereof,  and  may  demand  the  8hij)'s 
elearance  ;  and  if  there  be  any  goods  on  board  in  respect  of  which  cer 
tilicales  are  required,  not  contained  in  such  certiticates,  or  any  stores 
not  indorsed  on  the  victualing  bill,  such  goods  or  stores  shall  be  forfeited ; 
and  if  any  goods  contained  in  such  certiticates  be  not  oa  board,  the 
master  shall  forfeit  the  sum  of  twenty  pounds  for  every  j)ackage  or  j)arcel 
offjoods  contained  in  such  certiticates,  and  not  on  boanl. 

CXLVll.  If  any  officer  of  customs  shall  place  any  lock,  mark,  or  seal 
upon  any  goods  taken  from  the  warehouse  without  payment  of 
jliOl]  duty  as  stores  on  board  any  ship  or  vessel  de*i)arting  from  any 
port  in  the  United  Kingdom,  and  such  lock,  mark,  or  seal  be  will- 
fully opened,  altered,  or  broken,  or  if  any  such  stores  be  secretly  con- 
veyed away,  either  while  such  ship  or  vessel  remains  at  her  first  port  of 
departure,  or  at  any  other  port  or  place  in  the  United  Kingdom,  or  on 
lier  passage  from  one  such  port  or  place  to  another,  before  the  final  de- 
parture of  such  ship  or  vessel  on  her  foreign  voyage,  the  master  shall 
forfeit  the  sum  of  twenty  pounds. 

CXLVIII.  If  any  ship  departing  from  any  port  in  the  United  King- 
dom shall  not  bring  to  at  such  stations  as  shall  be  appointed  by  the  com- 
raissioners  of  customs  for  the  landing  of  officers  from  such  ships,  or  for 
12  A— II 


m 


y  ^l^'jiaiii 


178 


TRKATY    OF    WASHINGTON PAl'KRS   ACCOMrANYING 


fnrtber  cxaininatioii  previous  to  such  depaiture,  the  iiuister  of  such  .ship 

shall  forfeit  the  sum  of  tweuty  pounds. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

CLXV.  The  master  of  every  ship  bound  from  any  British  possessions 
abroad,  except  the  territories  subject  to  the  government  of  th(»  jnesi 
dencies  of  Bengal,  Madras,  and  Bombay,  shall  deliver  to  the  projuT  of- 
ficer of  customs  an  entry  outward  under  iiis  hand  of  such  ship,  and  also 
subscribe  and  deliver  to  such  olttcer  a  content  of  the  cargo  of  such  sliip, 
if  any,  or  state  that  she  is  in  ballast,  as  the  case  may  be,  and  answer 

such  questions  concerning  the  ship,  cargo,  if  any,  and  voyajjo,  as 
[092]    shall  bo  demand*ed  of  him  in  the  same  manner,  as  nearly  as  may 

be,  as  is  i)rescribed  to  be  observed  on  the  entry  and  departiue  oV 
any  ship  from  the  United  Kingdom,  and  thereupon  the  proper  officer 
shall  give  to  the  master  a  certificate  of  the  clearance  of  such  ship  for  her 
intended  voyage ;  and  if  the  ship  shall  depart  without  such  clearance, 
or  if  the  master  shall  deliver  a  false  content,  or  shall  not  truly  answer 
the  questions  demanded  of  him,  he  shall  forfeit  the  sum  of  fifty  pomuls. 


[«;();•>.]   *Tm-:  sm»iMJ<:MKNTAL  customs  coxsolidation 

A(rr,  18.-)."). 

[Kxtracts.] 


ANNO   DECIMO   0("rAVO    KT    DEt'niO   NOXO   VI«'T0IU/1';   llE(ilN.i;, 


Cap.  XCVI. — AN  ACT  to  t'oiisolitlatc  certain  aftn,  anil  othcrwist!  ayicnn  tlio  lawsdf 
the  cnstoms.  anil  an  act  to  rc<j;iilatt5  tlie  ollici;  (>l' tin- riM-cipt  of  FTer  Majesty's  cx- 
clicfincr  at  Westminster. — [14th  Anj>;nst,  l^Tj.^).] 

IX.  Xo  goods  shall  be  shipped,  put  otl",  or  water-borne,  to  be  sliipiKil 
for  exportation  from  any  port  or  place  in  tlie  United  Kingdom,  except 
on  days  not  being  Sundays  or  holidays,  nor  from  anyplace  except  .some 
legal  <piay,  wharf,  or  other  place  duly  appointed  for  such  purpo.se,  nor 
without  the  presence  or  authority  of  the  i)roper  officer  of  custom.s,  nor 
before  due  entry  outwards  of  such  shij)  ami  dite  entry  of  such  goods,  nor 
before  such  goods  shall  have  been  duly  cleared  lor  shipment;  and  any 

goods  slnp])ed,  ])ut  oil",  or  water-borne,  to  bo  shipped  contrary 
[094 J  t hereto,  shall  be  forfeited;  and  it  shall  be  lawful  *for  the  searcher 

to  oi>en  or  cause  to  be  opened,  and  to  examine  all  goods  shipjjed 
or  brought  for  shipment  at  any  place  in  the  United  Kingdom,  and  the 
opening  for  that  purpo.se  of  packages  containing  goods  upon  whicli  any 
draw  back  of  custonis  or  inland  revenue  is  claimed,  and  the  weighing:, 
repacking,  landing,  (when  water-borne,)  and  the  shipping  thereof,  shall 
be  done  by  or  at  tlie  expense  of  the  exporter. 

X.  Any  exporter  of  goods  who  .shall  fail,  either  by  himself  or  his 
agent,  to  deliver  to  the  searcher  a  shipping  l)ill,  with  duplicates  thereof, 
of  the  goods  exj)orted  by  him,  as  prescribed  by  the  one  hundred  and 
twentylitth  section  of  "  the  customs  consolidation  act,  1853,"  shall  for- 
feit the  sum  of  twenty  pounds. 

XI.  If  any  shi[)  having  cargo  on  board  shall  depart  from  any  port 
without  being  tluly  cleared,  tiie  master  shall  forfeit  the  siun  of  one 
hundred  pounds.  »#♦«»# 

XVI.  The  powers  and  authorities  now  vested  in  the  commission- 
ers of  customs  w  ith  regard  to  any  act  or  thing  relating  to  the  customs 


C'OUNTEU    CASE    OF    THE    UNITED    .STA'IES. 


179 


or  to  tia<ie  or  iisivigatioii  iii  any  of  the  Diiti.sh  possessions  abroad  shall, 
from  aiul  after  the  passinjj  of  this  act,  be  vested  in  the  goveriior, 
|C05|  lieuteuantgovernor,  or  other  person  *adniinisterinjf  the  govern- 
ment in  any  such  possession,  and  every  act  re(iuired  by  any  law 
to  be  <lone  by  or  with  any  particnlar  otHcer  or  at  any  particular  place, 
if  (lone  by  or  with  any  such  officer  or  at  any  place  appointed  or  nominated 
by  such  governor,  lieutenant-governor,  or  other  person  so  administering 
siich  government,  shall  be  deemed  to  have  been  done  by  or  with  such 
particular  officer  or  at  sudi  i^articular  place,  as  the  case  may  be,  and  as 
required  by  law ;  and  all  commissions,  deputations,  and  appointments 
granted  to  any  officers  ol*  customs,  in  fon^e  at  tliecomnuMicementof  this 
net,  shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect,  to  all  intents  ami  i)urposes,  as 
it'tlie  same  had  been  granted  (u-  made  in  the  first  instance  by  such  gov- 
ernor, lieutenant-governor,  or  person  so  administering  tlie  governnient 
of  any  such  possession ;  and  all  bonds  or  other  securities  which  shal' 
have  been  given  by  or  fiu-  any  such  ollicers  and  their  respective  securi- 
ties, for  good  conduct  or  otherwise,  shall  remain  in  force,  and  shall  and 
may  be  enforced  and  put  in  snit  at  the  instatu'e  of  or  by  directions  of 
liny  such  governor,  lieutenant-governor,  or  person  a«lministenng  the 
government  of  any  such  [)ossession.  *  #  # 


11)71   *Al)l)rri()NAL    EVll)K>iCE     KKOM    MELUOIJIINE    AND 
CAPETOWN,  SUBMITTED  TO  Till]  AlflUTHATOKS  ON 
TllH    IjTir  OF    DECEMBER,  ISVl,  BUT   NOT    INCLUDED  IN 
THE  EVIDENCE  THEN  PIUNTED. 


[OOS]    *Mr.  Adainson,  vouskI,  to  Mr.  Darin,  AsHistant  Secrctarij  of  State. 

Consulate  of  the  United  ^^tates  of  America, 

MelboHnw,  ISeptenibt'r  2."i,  1871. 

8iK :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt,  on  the  l.'Jth  in- 
stant, of  dispatch  No.  14,  dated  June  2'J,  1871,  from  the  Hon.  AVilliam 
Iliuiter,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  and  of  the  inclosnres  and  documents 
therein  referred  to. 

1  am  instructed  to  procure  such  further  evidence  as  it  may  be  possi- 
ble to  obtain  in  regard  to  various  facts  in  connection  with  the  visit,  at 
this  port,  of  the  armed  steamship  Sea  King,  otherwise  known  as  the 
confederate  steamship  Shenandoah,  in  order  more  fully  to  establish  the 
dainis  of  the  United  States  before  the  tribunal  which  is  to  sit  at  Geneva. 

In  explanation  of  the  want  of  fullness  in  the  documents  about  to  be  pre- 
sented to  you  herewith,  I  may  be  permitted  to  say,  that  the  time  be- 
tween the  receipt  of  the  honorable  Acting  Secretary's  dispatch  and  the 
departure  of  mail,  now  about  to  close,  was  too  short  for  the  neces- 
[(iOOj  sary  investigations  in  a  matter  of  such  impor*tance ;  that,  having 
but  recently  arrived  here,  I  was  comi»elled  to  depend  mainly  on  the 
assistance  of  Mr.  S.  I*.  Lord,  a  loyal  citizen  of  the  United  States,  long  a 
resident  of  this  port,  to  whose  zealous  co  opi  ration  I  am  indebted  for 
the  evidence  herewith.  Also,  that  beside  the  many  deaths  which  have 
wcnrred,  a  largo  number  of  those  who  could  give  valuable  evidence 
have  long  since  left  this  port,  and  that  most  of  those  still  here  decline 
siving  the  desired  information,  eiiher  because  it  might  be  prejudicial  to 
their  private  business,  or  to  the  interests  of  Great  Britain,  the  country 


ir'i 


'!  ■ 
i  , 


180 


rUK.VTV    OF    WASHINGTON PAPKUS    ACCOMPANYING 


to  wbieli  they  owe  alleffijince.  I  may  also  state  that  without  a  coiniuis 
tsiou  from  tho  courts  of  Great  Britain,  directing  the  taking  of  depositions, 
it  seems  ditticult  to  take  dechiratious  here  that  would  b';  evidence  in  tiic 
courts  of  England. 

With  the  above  explanations  1  now  submit  the  inclosed  deposition  of 
George  Washington  Kobbins,  of  Sandridge,  near  Melbourne,  (inclosurc 
No.  1,)  declaring  that  he  saw  the  Shenandoah  at  this  port  in  18Gr»,  and 
identifying  that  vessel  as  the  Sea  King  by  the  name  on  the  stern  as  well 
as  bj'  the  statements  made  to  him  by  two  of  her  ottlcers,  his  acquaint 

ances. 
f700|        Mr.  Kobbins  also  saw  the  Shenandoah  *on  the  government  slip 

at  Williamstown;  saw  working-men  going  to  and  from  her,  and 
positively  declares  that  additions  were  made  to  her  crew,  naming  two 
of  the  men.  You  will  particularly  notice  that  he  reported  the  shippin;; 
of  the  men  to  the  water-police,  who  said  they  were  i)owerless  to  inter 
fere  without  directions  from  the  head  authorities  at  Melbourne,  thus 
confirming  the  statement  of  Mr.  Consul  Blanchard  in  his  dispatch  ^^), 
4,  of  February  2',\,  180.").  Also,  as  showing  the  i>artnership  of  the  gov 
ernment  of  this  colony,  the  sworn  statement  of  Samuel  P.  Lord,  es(j.,  ni 
this  city,  (indosure  No.  2,)  repeating  under  oath  the  statement  contained 
in  his  letter  to  Mr.  C^onsul  Blanchard,  which  appears  as  inclosure  Xn. 
4!),  with  Mr.  Blanchard's  dispatch  of  February  23,  l.StJo,  giving  stroiii; 
evidence  of  the  unwillingness  of  the  Crown  solicitor  and  other  oHiciiils 
to  receive  information  wliich  might  make  it  t)»e  duty  of  the  governineiit 
to  sei/,0  the  Shenaiuloah,  and  generally  the  unfriendly  feeling  of  tlic 
goveiinnent  of  this  colony  as  towards  the  rnited  States. 

You  will  also  please  noti(!e  that  Mr.  Lord  identities  as  an  clliciiil 
1 701 1    book  or  document  the  printed  book  entitled  "The  Victorian  *  Man 

sard,"  whicli  was  luocluced  at  the  taking  of  his  <lei>ositioii,  ami 
which  will  i»e  forwarded  herewith  under  se[>arate  cover,  marked  .}  A. 

I  also  inclose  the  sworn  statement  of  Samuel  P.  Lord,  es(].,  (inclosuif 
No.  4,)  showing  the  fact  that  said  vessel  was  coaled  and  repaired  at  this 
port,  which  more  fully  explains  why  the  <leclar  tions  of  the  iieisoiis 
wiio  actually  furnished  the  coals  and  made  the  repairs  cannot  be  ;;ivon 
herewith.  Also  the  sworn  statement  of  il.  B.  Doujildson,  declaring' tn 
the  facts  of  the  arrival  of  the  Shenandoah  at  this  port,  the  stay  hereof 
eaid  ship,  the  repairs  made  at  the  government  slip,  and  i)arii('ularl,v  to 
the  fact  that  he  furnished  the  materials  for  sucli  repairs,  (inclosuif 
No.  5.) 

In  regard  tr  the  confidential  instructions  alluded  to  on  page  517,  Diplo 
matic  Correspondence,  it  would  seem  that  they  have  not  been  inado 
public. 

It  may  be  important  to  our  case  to  notice  i>articularly  the  debates  in 
the  legislative  councils  of  this  colony  during  the  stay  of  the  Sheuaii 

doah,  as  reported  in  the  Victorian  Hansard  herewith,  (see  pages 
[702]    2(J4,  284,  300,  and  304.)    On  page  204  it  will  be  seen  *that  the 

Hon.  Mr.  Berry  (now  the  treasurer  of  this  colony)  called  the  at- 
tention of  the  government  to  the  case  of  the  Shenandoah.  He  identi 
fled  her  as  the  vessel  called  the  Sea  King,  which  sailed  from  Loudoii 
about  the  8th  of  October,  1804,  asserting  that  there  was  abundant  evi 
deuce  of  the  fact,  and  inquired  whv  the  coufiscatiou  of  the  vessel  was 
not  carried  out  under  the  neutrality  i)roclamation.  He  pointed  out  to 
the  honorable  chief  secretary  that  the  vessels  destroyed  by  such  a  vos 
sel  would  at  some  future  time  be  claimed  by  the  Americau  Govermneut 
from  the  British  government,  but  unfortunately  his  ])ropheti(*  utter 
auces  were  not  heeded. 


COUNTKR   CASK    OF    I'HK    UNITED    STATKS. 


181 


The  partnersbip  of  this  government  niiiy  well  be  interre«l  trom  the  reply 
of  the  chief  secretary,  Mr.  McCulloch,  (now  Sir  James  McCiilloch,)  which 
follows  Mr.  Berry's  remarks.  The  same  partnership  is  also  clearly  shown 
ill  the  ^^  cheers  from  ail  imrts  of  the  house""  which  followed  the  subsequent 
remarks  o*'  Mr.  O'Shannessy.  It  is  also  shown  in  the  extremely  tardy 
action  of  the  government  in  regard  to  comjiiaints  made  that  the 
[70;3|  Shenandoah  *was  increasing  hei  crew  in  this  port.  The  honorable 
chief  secretary,  Mr.  McCulloch,  in  his  explanations  made  in  the 
house,  February  15,  1805,  (see  Hansard,  page  361,)  says,  "The  govern 
meut  found  they  could  not  shirk  the  (piestion."  It  was  apparently  their 
desire  to  do  so,  and  his  history  of  the  case  seenis  to  show  that  eventu- 
ally they  did  sliirk  it. 

i  much  regret  the  impossibility  of  obtaining  direct  testimony  on  many 
important  i>oints.  The  second  deposition  of  Samuel  P.  Lord,  eaq.,  states 
clearly  the  fact  that  Mr.  II.  W.  Langhmds,  who  is  substantially  the 
Liuiglands  Foundery  Company  of  this  ])lace,  admitted  to  Mr.  I^ord  that 
lie  made  the  repairs  on  the  Shenandoah  at  this  port,  and  that  he  paid 
one  J.  K.  Collins  the  sum  of  three  hundred  pouiuls  sterling  for  steve- 
dore work  on  said  vessel.  Mr.  Collins  did  at  first  agree  to  (lepose  to  his 
share  in  the  transaction,  but  on  second  thought  declined.  (See  his  letter 
attached  to  inclosure  ><'o.  2.) 

Tliat  rhe  Shenandoah  was  repaired  on  what  is  known  as  the  govern- 
ment slip  is  not  denied  by  the  then  chief  secretary,  (see  remarks  of 
Mr.  IMcCidloch,  Vi(;torian  Llansard,  i)age  '^^ii,)  but  I  believe  that 
1704]    at  that  *time  the  government  slip  was  leased  to  a  ])nvate  com- 
l)any. 

For  reasons  In  reinbefore  stated,  1  cannot  obtain  sworn  declaration  as 
to  the  coaling,  although  the  facts  are  a  matter  of  general  notoriety. 

The  recruiting  of  additional  crew,  at  this  port,  may  be  considered  as 
admitted  by  the  chief  secretary,  (see  Victorian  Hansard,  jiages  304, 
JO.!,)  and  the  fact  that  (^aptain  AVaddell  knew  that  men  were  Joining  his 
ship  here  is  indicated  by  his  refusal  to  allow  the  inspector  of  police  to 
;'.)  on  board  and  execute  the  warrant  for  apprehension  of  the  man 
"Charlie,"  and  that  Captain  Waddell  gave  his  word  of  honor  as  an  olti- 
ceraud  a  gentleman  that  there  was  no  such  person  on  board,  although 
hiteron  it  will  be  seen  that  four  men  were  (letecte<l  in  leaving  the  ship 
at  aboiii  10  o'clock  at  night,  and  that  one  of  them  was  the  aforesaid  nmn 
"Charlie.' 

The  fact  that  CJaptain  Waddell  had  violated  his  word  of  honor,  as  an 
olllcor  and  a  gentleman,  was  virtually  acknowledged  by  the  chief  secre- 
tary, in  suspending  for  a  time  permission  for  Her  ^Fajesty's  sub- 
•(••"(J  jects  to  *give  assistance  to  the  Shenandoah,  which  susi)ension  was 
however  removed,  for  what  appears  to  be  rather  insullicient  rea- 
sons; (see  llansard,  page  305,)  also,  by  the  fact,  a  matter  of  comnum 
it'imte,  that  the  leading  club,  the  "Melbourne  Club,"  which  had  giv«Mi  ii 
I'ublic  dinner  to  the  otHcers  of  the  Shenandoah,  <li<l  not  invite  tliem  so 
heely  and  openly  after  this  breach  of  "  word  of  hon«n'." 

As  further  sh')wing  the  partnership  of  the  government  ortieials,  I  may 
!<!iy  that  it  is  a  matter  of  common  report,  which,  however,  cannot  be 
established  by  direct  evidence,  that  when  a  i)ublic  reception  was  ten- 
•lored  the  oHicers  of  the  Shenandoah  by  (Mtizens  of  Uallarat,  distant  00 


¥': 


182 


TUKATY    OF    WASHINGTON PAPERS    ACCOMPANYING 


,!U 


1 

^1  ■ 

1 

',T'r 

r 

U .  i  ■ 

t  ■it)  ■'  • 

.;»■;■'«*;!;'■  (-/    - 

■i  .•:&,■.'..         . 

IB""  ato^'r'ai;  i:... 

■■BrtWKAiifei^jv 

V|^R!f 

HI  "iaSQii -b' : -^ 

^H.>'»iK:^'ri 

^^HnvKSixIm' '  r 

Hv  ilSMi  wCWt^  . 

HSliJiiUilL^  '<;  'i 

■ViitfllKlilni  I9r.'  1 A 

EifiaiiSir 

miles,  tbe  government  of  this  colony,  in  the  person  of  one  of  its  members, 
furnished  ssiid  officers  with  free  passes  over  the  railway. 

Kespectfully  submittinp^  the  forejjoing,  1  hs'.ve  the  honor  to  bo,  sir. 
yours,  &C., 

TUO^fAS  ADAMSON,  Jr., 

I'mted  States  Consul. 
lion.  .J.  C.  Ji.  Davls, 

'Assifitant  Secretary  of  State,  Washiuffton. 

P.  y. — At  the  time  of  writing  the  above,  the  de[»osition  of  H.  B.  Don 
aldson,  marked  enclosure  No.  5,  was  in  the  solicitor's  hands,  ready 
( 700]  for  INIr.  Donaldson  to  swear  to  ami  *subscribe.  I  have  made  every 
effort  to  have  itcomi)Ieted,  and  now,  atl  p.  m.,  my  solicitor  comes 
with  the  document  unsigned,  stating  that  Donaldson  refuses  to  sign  niitil 
he  receives  £.10  for  doing  so.  I  will  barely  liave  tinie  to  mail  this;  in 
fact  mav  have  to  send  it  to  Svdney  to  be  mailed. 

TUOMAS  ADAMSON,  Jr., 

United  States  Consul. 


Affidaiut  of  G.  \V.  liohbins. 

To  all  to  whom  these  presiMits  shall  come  :  I,  Henry  I'enlceth  Fei-gio, 
notary  public  by  royal  authority,  duly  authori/ied,  admitted,  and  sworn, 
residing  and  )nacticing  in  the  city  of  Melbourne,  in  the  colony  of  Victorin, 
do  hereby  certify  that  Winrield  Atteuborough,  before  whom  the  atlidiivit 
of  George  Washington  liobbins,  on  the  other  si<le  written,  pur])orts  to 
have  been  sworn,  is  a  commissioner  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  said 
colony  for  taking  aflidfivits  duly  api)ointed  in  that  behalf;  and  that  tlic 
name  W.  A.ttenborough  subscribed  thereto  is  of  the  proiter  handwritin;; 
of  the  said  Wintield  Atteuborough ;  and  that  i<>  all  nets  by  him,  tin 
said  Wintield  Attenborough,  done  in  his  said  cai)acity  or  otiico. 
[707]    *full  faith  and  credit  are  due,  in  jiulicature  and  thereout. 

In  faith  and  testimony  whereof,  I,  the  said  notary,  have  here 
unto  subscribed  my  name  and  set  and  affixed  my  seal  of  office,  at  Mel 
bourne,  in  the  said  colony  of  Victoria,  this  twenty-fiftii  day  of  tSepteni 
ber,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  ■  ?veiity 
one. 

[SEAJ,.|  TTENUV  PENKKTII  FEHdIE, 

Xotary  I'nhlic,  Melhonnie. 


I,  (leorge  Washington  Itobbins,  of  Sandridge,  near  .Melbourne,  in 
the  colony  of  Victoria,  stevedore,  make  oath  and  say  as  follows : 

1.  1  have  been  in  business  in  Sandridge  (port  of  Melbourne)  as  a 
stevedore  ever  since  June,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-three. 

2.  1  saw  the  vessel  Shenandoah  in  the  port  of  Melbourne  in  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-five.  The  name  Shenandoah  1  per 
ceived  ha*!  been  painted  over  the  name  Sea  King ;  the  p.iint  having 
worn  ott",  the  original  name  was  plainly  disclosed.  The  vessel  was  pop 
ularly  known  in   this  port  as  the  confederate  ship  of  war  Shcuan 

doah. 
[708|        *.'{.  1  knew  the  paymaster  of  the  Shenandoah  and  one  of  the 

engineers;  I  first  became  acquainted  with  them  in  New  Orleans, 
in  the  United  States  >>f  America.  Tliey  told  me  the  Shenandoah  wis 
originally  the  Sea  King.    They  asked  me  to  take  in  the  coals  for  tlu' 


COUXTEK   CASK    OF    THK    I'MTED    STATES. 


183 


ship,  but  1  refused,  on  the  gromul,  as  1  told  tlicm,  that  there  was  one 
American  flag  Hying  when  1  left  the  <!onntry,  and  I  didn't  recognizi^.  any 

other  flag. 
[70y|       *4.  I  saw  the  Shenandoah  on  the  government  slip  at  Williams- 
town,  near  Melbourne;  1  saw  working-men  going  backwards  and 
forwards  whilst  she  was  on  tlie  government  slip. 

.").  1  saw  coals  being  put  on  board  the  ship  when  she  waj  lying  at 
lUicLor  in  the  bay. 

0.  I  know  that  several  men,  residents  of  this  port,  went  on  board  the 
Shenandoah,  in  this  port,.as  additions  to  her  crew,  and  went  away  in 
her.  Thomas  Strong  and  Henry  IMley  were  the  names  of  two  of  the 
men  who  so  Avent  away.  Thomas  Strong  left  n»y  employ  for  the  pur- 
pose of  so  going  away.  Thomas  Strong  returned  to  Melbourne  after- 
wards and  applied  to  me  for  work,  which  I  refused,  on  the  ground  that 
he  had  gone  away  in  the  Shenandoah  against  my  desire. 

7.  I  reported  to  the  waier  police  at  Williauistown  the  shipping  of  the 
men,  but  they  said  they  were  powerless  to  interfere  without  directions 
from  the  head  authorities  in  Melbourne. 

8.  It  was  well  known  in  the  port  that  the  so-called  Shenandoah  was 
beitis  coaled,  repaired,  and  her  crew  strengthened  here,  and  without 
olijection  on  the  ])art  of  the  government. 

(1.  W.  IJOJJIUNS. 

Sworn  at  Melbourne,  in  the  colony  of  \'i(*t()ria,  this  twenty-hrst  day 
of  September,  1.S71. 
1 1 10 1   *  IJefore  me, 

W.  ATTi<:NiJOK()U(iM, 

.1  (Umm'iHHioner  for  talcin(i  affidarits   in  the,  Siipycmc  Coitrf  of  the  Colony 
of  Victoria . 


Hi- 


Iwritiii?: 


ne)  as  ii 
y-thrce. 
in  oiu' 
h  1  per 
t  having 
was  pop 
Sheuaii 

e  of  the 
Orleans, 
loah  was 
for  tlu' 


.ilfiilaritofS.  J'.  Lord. 

I,  Samuel  i*erkins  Jjord,  of  Collins  Street  west,  in  the  city  of  Mel 
bonrne,  in  the  colony  of  Victoria,  merchant,  make  oath  and  say  as  fol 
lows,  that  is  to  say : 

1.  Jn  compliance  with  a  re«piest  from  Mr.  William  Blancbard,  then 
consul  in  the  said  colony  for  the  United  States  of  America,  made  to  me 
by  him  on  the  twentieth  day  of  February,  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
ami  sixty-five,  that  I  would  give  him  in  writing  an  account  of  my  inter- 
view held  in  Mr.  Blanclrard's  presence  with  Mr.  Gurner,  who  tiien,  as 
now,  occupied  the  position  of  Crown  solicitor  in  the  said  colony,  I 
wrote  and  sent  to  Mr.  Blanchard,  on  the  said  twc  .itieth  day  of  February, 
cue  thousand  eight  hundre»  /I  sixty-five,  a  letter  of  which  the  follow- 
ing is  a  copy : 

Mkmjolhnk,  I'Hiuarif  iJO,  1865. 

Uk.vu  Sir:  Yours  of  this  date  is  nfcoived  requesting  me  to  give  yon  an  ucconut  of 
iiii  interview  held  in  my  presence  between  you  and  Mr.  (Jnrner,  Crown  solicitor 
1.(11]  on  Friday  last.  In  reply,  you  must  *allow  mo  to  state  the  whole  occurrences  ot 
the  afternoon  in  connection  with  the  att'air  of  shipping  men  for  the  Shenuii- 
tloali,  which  were  simply  these:  ^While  in  yonr  office  about  5  o'clock  p.  m.,  a  man 
nm  in  out  of  breath,  asking  to  see  the  United  States  consul,  saying  he  had  run  most 
«f  tlie  way  from  Sandridge,  to  report  to  you  that  there  were  a  large  number  of  men 
of  hi8  acquaintanceH  that  were  about  going  on  board  the  bark  Maria  Ross,  (then  lying 
ill  tlio  bay  ready  to  sail,)  with  the  intention  of  shipping  on  board  the  Shenandoah,  which 
veiwel  also  was  about  leaving  port.  Yon  stated  that  as  the  information  was  import- 
ant nnd  urgent,  you  would  at  once  take  the  man  to  the  Crown  solicitor's  office,  where 
yon  had  previously  been  directed  by  tlie  attorney-general  to  take  similar  information . 


/ '  'm 


■^B 


.x,ij 


184 


TKKATY    OF    WASI!IN'(JTON PAI'EKH    ACCOMPANYING 


my 


Yon  at  once  took  u  coiiM-yance,  and  drove  to  the  Crown  law  oKiceH.  As  w«  stopped 
at  the  Kutc  we  Haw  Mr.  Ourner,  with  one  «»t'  the  employes  of  the  office,  coniinjj  (l(i«i, 
thoyard  t'nmi  the  door.  Hit,  on  Heeing  nH,  tnrned  partly  around,  and  gave  in  an  niKhntoiic 
Honie  directiouH  to  this  (*ruploy<5,  whieh  I  did  not  hear ;  on  onr  entering  the  gate,  Mr.  (iiiriier 
and  hi.seuiployd  stopped  half  way  down  the  yard,  andouonr  attempting  to  pasHthi'iii  to  pi 

i  nto  the  building  were  accostedjby  theclerk,  who  said  there  was  no  one  in,  or  sonic 
[712]  *thing  to  that  etlect.     When  I  said  we  should  then  have  to  trouble  Mr.  Giiriitr, 

as  the  business  was  ju'gent,  and  introduced  you  as  the  United  States  consul  to 
Mr.  Ourner,  the  Crown  solicitor,  he,  without  noticing  or  acknowledging  you,  said  vei\ 
tartly  that  he  was  going  to  his  dinner  and  could  not  be  detained,  when  you  replied,'! 
come  as  the  representative  of  the  United  States,  with  evidence  to  lay  before  you,  tlii> 
Crown  H(dicitor,  of  a  large  number  of  men  about  violating  the  neutrality  laws  of  the 
country;"  at  which  he  replied,  in  a  sneering  and  most  insulting  manner,  "  I  don't  care; 
1  want  my  dinner,  and  I  am  going  to  have  it ;  there  are  plenty  of  magistrates  round 
town ;  go  to  them."  When  1,  seeing  that  you  felt  bitterly  the  insulting  manner  of  .Mr. 
Ourner  and  wishing  'o  spare  yon  a  continuation  of  it,  said,  "Let  us  then  go  and  set- 
the  attorney-general. '  Mr.  Oui'ner  turned  his  back  on  ns  and  walked  oH".  When  ont- 
side  the  gate  and  about  a  do7,«!n  paces  down  Collins  stniet,  he  turne<l  and  hallitoed  out. 
*'  My  dinner,  my  dinner,  liord,  that  is  what  I  want."  We  left,  and  went  lirst  to  the 
office  of  chief  commissiiHier  of  police,  and  not  tinding  either  him  or  Mr.  Lytletoii  in. 
we  drove  to  the  Louse  of  ]mrliament,  and  on  sending  your  name  to  the  attorney-Kwi- 

eral,  he  at  once  came  out  and  asked  us  into  the  side  room.  He  patiently  listoncd 
[71;J]  to  all  you  had  to  say,  "and  then  suggested  that  if  you  would  place  the  matter  in 

the  shape  of  an  affidavit  he  would  lay  it  before  his  colleagues;  that  avcrhal 
stat«!ment  was  not  sufficient  for  the  government  to  proceed  upon.  We  then  left,  and 
drove  to  the  office  of  the  <l(;t<'ctive  police  and  saw  Mr.  Nicholson,  tiie  chief,  who  iieard 
tlie  man's  statement  in  full,  but,  as  he  could  not  act  without  a  warrant,  advi.sed  ns  to 
go  to  the  police  and  magistrate,  Mr.  Shirt,  and  get  a  warrant,  then  he  would  at  once 
act  upon  it.  Leaving  then!  we  went  to  the  residence  of  Mr.  Start  in  Spencer  street, 
who  received  you  very  politely,  listened  to  what  you  had  to  say,  examined  the  man, 
but  stated  that  he  conhl  not  take  the  n-sitonsibility  of  granting  a  warrant  on  the  evi- 
dence of  this  man  alone,  and  advi.si^d  your  going  t<»  Wilhamstown  to  McCall,  who  wonhi 
perhaps  be  in  possession  of  corroborative  testimony  through  the  water  police.  We  then 
left,  ami  it  being  about  half  itast  .seven,  and  yon  tinding  such  a  disinclination  in  any 
one  to  act  in  the  matter,  decided  to  take  the  deposition  yourself  and  send  it  to  tlie  at- 
torney-general, leaving  it  to  the  government  to  take  such  action  on  it  as  it  might  deem 
])roper.    Going  to  your  consulate  the  deposition  was  taken,  and  a  copy  inclosed  to  the 

attorney-gcncH'al  with  a  request  for  me  to  delivtsr  it.  I  took  it  ti»  the  house  (it 
[714]  parliament,  which  I  found  closed,  and  it  being  '*then  late,  about  nine,  I  deei(hil 

it  was  too  late  to  stojt  the  shipment  of  the  men,  as  we  understood  the  vessel  was 
to  leave  at  live,  and  1  went  honu;  tind  returned  yon  the  letter  to  you  on  Saturday  nioin- 
iiig.  I'reviuns  to  going  home,  however,  I  again  went  to  the  (hstective  office,  saw  .Mr. 
Nicholson,  and  told  him  how  you  had  been  prevented  from  gtittiug  theevid(!nce  before 
the  government  in  tin;  .shape  they  re<|uired  it.  He  expressed  his  regret,  but  could  ndt 
act  in  so  important  a  matter  without  a  warrant.  1  havt^  thus  given  you,  as  near  as  I 
can  recollect,  the  occurrences  as  they  took  ])lMce  at  the  time  you  mention,  and,  a.s  I  he 
lieve,  nearly  word  for  word  as  they  were  utt('re<l. 

I  remain,  dear  sir,  yours,  rcsiHctfullv, 

SAMUKL  I'.  LOK'I). 
Wii,i,i.\M  Ui,.\N<:iiAi!i),  Ksi)., 

United  Statcn  ('oiixid,  Melboiinic. 

2.  The  whole  of  the  iacts  narrated  or  referred  to  in  my  sjiid  lettei  to 
Mr.  JUanchard  as  liaving"  taken  place,  did  aetually  take  plaee  in  my 
own  jiresence,  and  in  the  order  and  unuiner  Jind  at  the  times  there  de- 
tailed, and  the  person  or  functionaries  there  named  respectively  then 
held  the  offices  in  my  said  letter  mentioned  as  havin}»-  been  held  by 
them,  and  the  whole  of  the  statements  eonttuned  in  my  said  let 
715J    ter  are  true  in  every  *parti«Hilar. 

;».  The  exhibit  or  volume  now  ])roduced  to  me  and  marked  A, 
and  whieh  purports  to  be  the  "  The  Victorian  Hansard,  containini;'  the 
debates  and  proceediujjs  of  the  le;.»islative  council  and  assembly  of  the 
colony  of  Victoria,  Friday,  December  23,  18G4,  to  Thursday,  March  -, 
1865,"  and  to  Ijave  been  published  at  Melbourne  aforesaid  by  "  Wilson 
and  Mackinnon,''  was  so  published  by  Wilson  and  Mackinnon  niuler 
the  direction  of  the  government  of  the  said  colony  of  Victoiiu,  and  ^vas 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES. 


185 


the  only  imblicatioii  of  the  debates  and  proceedings  of  the  said  legisla- 
tive council  and  a  sembly  authorized  by  the  said  government. 

SAMUEL  P.  LORD. 

Sworn  at  Melbourne,  in  the  colony  of  Victoria,  this  twenty-fifth  day 
of  September,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
seventy-one,  before  me. 

W.  ATTENBO]IOUGH, 
A  Commissioner  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  Colony  of  Victoria  for  taking  Affidavits. 

To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come :  I,  Henry  Penketh  Fergie, 
notary  public  by  royal  authority,  duly  authorized,  admitted,  and  sworn, 
rosidiug  and  practicing  in  the  city  of  Melbourne,  in  the  colony  of  Vic- 
toria, do  hereby  certify  that  Winfield  Attenborough,  before  whom 
ilJOJ  the  affidavit  on  the  *other  side  written  purports  to  have  been 
sworn,  is  a  commissioner  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  said  colony 
of  Victoria  for  taking  affidavits,  duly  appointed  in  that  behalf,  and 
that  the  name  W.  Attenborough  thereto  subscribed,  and  to  the  exhibit 
thereto  annexed,  is  of  the  proper  handwriting  of  the  said  Winfteld  At- 
tenborough, and  that  to  all  acts  by  him,  the  said  Winfield  Attenborough, 
(lone  in  his  said  capacity  or  office,  full  faith  and  credit  are  due  in  Judi- 
cature and  thereout. 

In  faith  and  testimony  whereof  1,  the  said  notary,  have  hereunto  sub- 
scribed my  name  and  set  and  aflixed  my  seal  of  otiiee,  at  Melbourne,  in 
the  said  colony  of  Victoria,  this  twenty-fifth  day  of  September,  in  the 
vear  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  seventvone. 

[SEAL.J  UENKY  PENKETH  FERGIE, 

Xotary  Public.  Mdhournc. 


Further  affidavit  of  S.  /'.  Lord. 

To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come:  I,  Henry  Penketh  Fergie, 
notary  i)ublic  by  royal  authority,  duly  authorized,  admitted,  and  sworn, 
residing  and  practicing  in  the  city  of  ]Melbourue,  in  the  colony  of  Vic- 
toria, do  hereby  certify  that  Winfield  Attenborough,  before  whom 
[717]  *the  affidavit  on  the  other  side  written  purports  to  have  been 
sworn,  is  a  commissioner  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  said  colony 
iif  Victoria  for  taking  affidavits,  duly  appointed  in  that  behalf,  ami 
that  the  name  W.  Attenborough  thereto  subscribed,  and  to  the  exhibit 
thereto  amiexed,  is  of  the  ])roper  handwriting  of  the  said  Winfield  At- 
tenborough, and- that  to  all  acts  by  him,  the  said  Winfield  Attenbor- 
iiiikIi,  done  in  his  said  capacity  oi-  office,  full  faith  aud  credit  are  due  in 
judicature  and  thereout. 

In  faith  and  testimony  whereof  T,  the  sai<l  notary,  have  hereunto 
subscribed  my  name  and  set  and  afiixed  my  seal  of  otUce,  at  Melbourne, 
iu  the  said  colony  of  Victoria,  this  twenty-fifth  day  of  Septend)er,  in 
tlie  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousaml  eight  hundred  and  seventy-one. 

|sEAL.]  HENRY  PENKETH  FERGIE, 

Notary  Puhlic,  Melbourne. 


A. 

SANDRiD(rE,  ISeittember  20,  1871. 
Dear  Sir:  Referring  to  the  conversation  I  had  with  you  in  relation 
to  the  steamship  Shenandoah,  I  must,  on  second  consideration,  decline 


18(j  TKKATV    OF    W  A.SHINGTOX PAPEK-S   ACfOMPANYIXG 


W)  ■■'; 


1 718]    (for  private  iea.st»us)  giving  ♦you  llie  iiiforiiiiitiou  I  promisMj 
.voii. 
Trusting  you  will  not  consider  tbis  refusal  any  want  of  respect  to  or 
confidence  in  yon. 

I  remain,  your  oliedient  sor\ant, 

JOHN  K.  COLLINS, 

Steredore. 
SAMi  KL  1'.  Lord.  Ks4|.. 

MtlbourHe. 


This  is  the  exhibit,  marke*!  A.  refeiTcd  to  in  the  affidavit  of  Sanmel 
f*erkins  Lord,  sworn  before  nie  this  liath  dav  of  .**epteuil>er,  187L 

W.  ATTENBOKOUGH, 
A  Commiiwioner  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  tlie  Colony  of  Victor ia  for  taking  A ffidarih. 


i  J' 


•  •■* 


i 


111 


$' 


I,  Samuel  Perkins  Lord,  of  Collins  Street  west,  Melbourne,  in  the  colony 
of  Victoria,  merchant,  make  oath  and  say  as  follows ;  that  is  to  say : 

1st.  On  the  21st  day  of  September  instant,  I  s;iw  Mr.  .J.  K.  Collins.of 
Sandridge,  near  Melbourne,  steve<lore,  who  stated  to  me.  and  I  l»elie\> 
it  to  be  true,  that  he  was  the  stevedore  of  the  confederate  shipSheiian 
doah  while  in  the  i>ort  of  Mellwnrne,  and  thint  he  took  on  boanUur 
coal  when  here,  and  he  at  the  same  interview  oflei-ed  to  furnish  me  wiili 
a  copy  of  his  account  against  the  ship,  but  on  my  afterward  applyiiijjin 
him  for  such  copy  account,  he  refuse<l  to  give  it. 

2d.  On  the  21st  day  of  Septemljer  instant,  I  saw  Mr.  Henry  W.  Lan; 
lands,  who  is  the  manager  of  the  Langlands  Foundery  Compam. 
[710J  carrying  on  business  *here  as  Lmglands  Foundery  Company,  who 
told  me  that  their  company  did  the  repairs  to  the  said  vessel 
called  the  Shenandoah,  when  she  was  in  thisjiKut ;  that  he  paid  some  of 
her  bills;  among  the  rest  he  paid  the  sai<l  J.  K.  Collins  the  sum  of  tbm- 
hundred  pounds  for  steveilore  work  on  the  Shenandoah.  He  stated  to 
me,  at  first,  that  he  was  willing  to  furnish  me  with  a  copy  of  his  account, 
and  afterward  on  applying  to  him  for  it,  he  showetl  it  to  me,  but  refused 
to  let  me  have  it,  unless  up<ju  my  assurance  that  it  would  not  be  used 
against  his,  the  British  government.    This  I  refuse<l  to  give. 

3d.  I  have  this  day  received  from  the  said  J.  K.  Collins  the  letter 
marked  A,  hereunto  annexed. 

SAMUEL  P.  LOED. 

Sworn  at  Mellwurne.  in  the  colony  of  Victoria,  this  25th  day  of  Sej*^ 
tember,  1871. 
Before  me, 

W.  ATTENBOUOUGH, 
.1  Commiifsioner  for  taking  AfUdariti  in  the 
iiuprtme  Court  in  the  Colony  of  Victoria. 


mte 


Ajffidarit  of  J.  A.  Mouteath. 

To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come :  L  Henry  l*enketh  Fergie. 
notary  public  by  royal  authority,  duly  authorized,  admitted,  and  sworn, 
residing  and  practicing  in  the  city  of  Melbourne,  in  the  colony  of  Vic 


toria,  do  hereby  certify  that   Winlield 


Atteoborongh, 


before    whoia 


COrXTER    CASE    OK    THE    IMTEH    STATES. 


187 


[720]  *tlit*  attidavit  of  Jam(>.s  Austin  Mouteath  on  the  other  side  written 
pnriK>rts  to  have  been  sworn,  is  a  eonunissioner  of  the  supreme 
(•onrt  of  saiil  colony  for  taking;  affidavits,  dnly  appointed  in  that  behalf, 
antl  that  name  W.  Attenborough,  subscribe<l  thereto,  and  to  the  ex- 
hibit thereto  annexed,  is  of  the  proper  handwritiuf;  of  tlie  said  Winfiehl 
AtteiilMMOugh,  and  that  to  all  acts  by  hi>n,  the  said  Winfiehl  Atten- 
Itoroujih.  done  in  his  sjiid  capacity  or  ottice,  full  faith  and  credit  are 
due  ill  Judicature  and  thereout. 

In  faith  and  testimony  whereof  I,  the  said  notary,  have  hereunto  sub- 
soribe«l  my  name  and  set  and  atlixed  my  seal  of  otHce,  at  Melbourne,  in 
tbe  said  colony  of  Vict<Mia,  this  twenty-fifth  day  of  September,  in  the 
vear  of  our  Lonl  one  thonsan«l  eijrlit  hundred  and  seventv-<nie. 

[sKAi.j  IlENUV  PENKKTII  FEHdlK, 

Xotarif  I'lihlic,  Mrllnmnir. 


I,  .hiines  Austin  Monteith,  of  Melbourne,  in  the  colony  of  X'ictorm, 
clerk  to  Mes.srs.  Uennett  and  Attenborou^^h,  of  the  same  place, 


[7211    solicitor.s,  make  oath  and  sav  as  *  follows; 


1.  I  know  and  am  well  acquainted  with  Mr.  11.  !>.  Donaldson,  of 
Sainliid*re.  near  Melbonrne,  aforesaid,  ship-chandler,  carrying  on  busi- 
ness as  II.  U.  Donaldson  &  Co. 

2.  On  being  applied  to  by  the  said  firm  <)f  llennett  &  Attenborough 
lor  information  jis  to  supplies  which  they  had  understood  lia«l  been  made 
by  the  sjiid  II.  IJ.  Donaldson  in  the  beginning  of  the  year  ISO."),  to  the 
vessel  (then  in  this  port)  known  here  as  the  confederate  shij)  of  war 
Shenandoah,  the  sai«l  II.  B.  Donaldson  juomised  to  send,  and  did  send, 
to  the  said  firm  of  Bennett  &  Attenborough,  a  document  which  he  stated 
was  tlie  duidicate  of  his  account  against  the  saitl  ship  furnished  by  him 

to  Captain  Waddell,  who  was  then  her  captain. 
[722]  ••>.  The  said  account  was  so  placed,  by  the  said  II.  B.  Donald- 
son, in  the  hands  of  the  said  tirm  for  thei)urpose  of  euiibliug  the 
said  tirm  to  have  a  copy  thereof  made  and  verified  by  his  affidavit,  to 
l)ensed  in  support  of  the  claims  of  the  American  Government  against 
the  British  government,  known  as  the  "Alabama  Claims." 

4.  The  sjud  11.  B.  Donaldson  stated,  when  so  applied  to,  that  he  ha<l 
lieen  paid  the  amonnt  of  his  said  account  by  the  hands  of  the  captain 
or  the  purser  of  the  said  ship  Shenandoah,  and  that  he  could  depose  to 
the  fact  that  Messrs.  Bright  Brothers  had  put  seven  hundred  t«)ns  of 
coal  on  board  the  said  ship  in  this  port. 

5.  A  copy  of  the  said  account  was  accordingly  made.  an<l  such  copy 
is  hereunto  annexed,  marked  A. 

6.  The  said  H.  B.  Donaldson  sent  for  and  obtained  from  the  said  firm 
the  Siiid  original  account,  on  the  plea  that  there  were  some  inaccuracies 
in  it  which  he  wished  to  correct. 

7.  An  affidavit  was  duly  prepared  by  the  said  tirm  for  the  said  H.  B. 
Donaldson  to  de|)ose  to  verifying  the  said  copy  account,  and  his  afore- 
said statements:  but  on  being  requested  to  swear  to  it,  he  said  he  would 
not  do  so  unless  he  was  paid  the  sum  of  ftftv  pounds  for  so  doing. 

J.  A.  MONTEITH. 

Sworn  at  Mf  ll>ourne,  in  the  colony  of  Victoria,  this  2r)th  day  of  Sep- 
tember. 1871,  before  me, 

W.  ATTENBOROUGH, 
A  Commissioner  of  the  Supreme  Court 

of  the  Colony  of  Victoria,  for  taking  a^^davitn. 


ii 

^^ 

# 

^; 

• 

a 

1 

i 

!;i 


18X 

[72:5  J 


Jan.  •>- 


TKKATY    OF    WASIIIXCJTON — PAl'KKS    ACCOMPANYING 

•A.; 

Sanduiduk,  September  lil,  1S7I. 
(iiHHis  nhiitpvil :  SiiKNANDoAH,  confederate  war  ateainer, 

Boiijflit  of  H.  B.  Donaldson  &  Co., 
Wliolesalc  and  retail  Hhipchandlern,  ctv. 

To  HKl  is,„  tVct  (>  x  H  T  X  (iflooiiiifj  =:1,*^()0  lent,  :{()« IH  o 

'l"o  J,\  teet ;{  X  W  red  piuo  -.^^ 75  loetjIWt 1  •,' 

'                    0  ;{ 

....  Kt  (i 


F.li 


[T-»4] 


l7-r,1 


To  4  assorted  iiails,  2't;  W  —  ii-inch  i;ut,  iiaiU,  1«.  IW 

To  /„,  ;';.  1  i  f«i't   t)  X  U  T  X  Cr.  bowels,  GH7  feet,  :{0« 

To  r<  pieces  c.  pine,  I'id  feet  HO*. — jCI  10«.  tjrf.;  17  feet  l»  x ;{  pine, 

77  feet,  ;W«.— '-Mm.  \M 

To    ,".,,    ,\  feet  1.1  X  i  do,  "JOD.  %\x.-  ,C",'.  H».h.  ;   ,'; ,  ^,  feet  W  x  W  deal. 

14<l  feet.ltix. — 'I'Ih.  M 

To  \'l  slieets  siuid-paper,  "ix.  (W. ;   ,',;,  i',.  ,'  fi-et  i 

11  X  1  i  l.iiK  k\vo(Ml ;*-".>.")  feet  4  inches, 

To  ^'..  feet  1»  X  \  ,' ,  hlackwood S 

To  ,"„,  ',.  V  feet  11x1.',;   V,  I'l'  l«'«'t  :?  X  '-i  deal,  l.'>()  feet  11  inches, 

nu.  <w 

\\*  ,'..,  ,'„   feet  11  hy  j-iiuh  do.,  *^()0  feet, '.iliN.,  £2  12».;  i  feet  3  x  :{, 

.'W  feet  "J  inches,  .'>«.  \d 

T»»  J,  feet  7  x  l.',,*21  feet  \\  inches,  ")«.  M. ;  5  2-inch  clasp-nails, 
'h'.M 

I'o  1  ;ji(is.s  1  ),-ineh  iron  screws,  lf»«.  Itif/. ;  'i  <!;ros.s  l-i-inch  clasp- 
nails.  Is.  (irf. ;  4.:{-in(lt  enlniik,  :2« n 

To  fonr  pairs •J-inch  hriiss  butts,  :?.'<. (W. — Mt. ;  4doz',u  !j-incli  brass 
scn'ws,  7.U?. — 'l».  tW. :    t  brass  bnttons,  1« 

"To  4  brass  screws.  (i(/. ;  4  small  brass  knobs,  'in.  \  7  pounds  2-inch 
cut  nails,  Wm.  \m\ 

To  7  ]iairs  "i-inch  brass  butts,  4x. — x'l  '^x.;  T)  dozen  5-inch  iron 
seri'ws,  2«.  (>(Z 

7  brass  buttons.  I.s. ',tf/.;  7  brass  screws.  (W.;  It  dozen  .l-in«;h  i)on 
sen- ws,  Ix. — ;{« 

'I'o4dozen  v-inch  brass  screws,  1«. — 4**.;  7  <lo/eu  ;;-incli  iron  screws, 
l.'w.  lOrf 

I'o  'I  do/en  iron  drawer-knobs,  j^s. — His.;  1  dozen  niahof^auy 
knobs,  (!x 

I'o  'I  Only  drawer-locks,  ;>.•<.  (W. — ()«.;  W  Oidy  drawer-locks,  7n 

To  ]    set    cltiiks.   JL'".>    (w 

>.MI.-M.\KKI!S'    |)i:r.\UT.MI',NT. 

I'o  lilt  fathoms  .")-ineh  1?  rojte,  JL'8  l.")>i.  ;  1  settinjj-tid,  :?  x  7  iuclu!^ 

at  bottom.  0\.  KN.  (2-20,  U.) 12 

To   marline   prickers,  :Vs. — 4)*. ;.')(»  seaminjj-needlcs,  t^H.  4W (• 

r«»  (!  sail  hooks.  <!«. ;  iron-wire  shapeline,  IGx 1 

To  t»u  yards  white  duck.  In.  IW. — iJiVJ  IDs. ;  :12  j.siallous  molasses, 

4.V.  KW.:  C  casks,  (:K)  Wn.  \M :•>! 

'I'o  .">(•  gallons  lime-juice,  ."is. — i,'12  lO.s.;  !(*(•  gallons  rum,  4.v.  9<J. — 

£2:5"  l.">x .' ;?() 

*To  40  fruits.  £  1  .")m.  ;  2  kejjs  pickles,  :'.()  gallons,  £5) 1(» 

To  2  cases  white  lead  putty,  £2  Kis 5 

To  2  boatswain's  calls,  silver,  IHn 1 

To  •"*  globe  lamps,  assorted  sizes,  £7  -Is.;  2  lead  putty,  £5  12« 12 

To  'I  pieces  1  lamp-tape,  12« 0 

To:{l  c.  leail  juittv,  £".>  16.s 9 

To  1  c.  lead  putty,  £2  KJs.;  'i,^  cotlee,  .')f 17 

To  4:$  gallons  .lanniica  rum,  £10  4«.  'Ml.;  20  Jars  table-salt,  l.lx 10 

To  <i  dozen  pepper,  £4  \^x.\  6  dozen  uiustar«l,  £:i  7» 7 

'\y^  1.500  preserved  meats,  £<>H  15s.;  600  soup  and  bouilli,  £27  lO'*.  9l5 
To  4  c.  preserved  potatoes,  £10] ;    2  dozen   blacking-bru8he.s,  30 ; 

:{  extra  and  bond 14 

To  towels,  4,  15 5 

To  labor  paid,  £121  121 

To  1  dozen  bra.ss  buttons,  9».  M.\  3  do/en  do.  knobs,  368.,  220,  lis,  Od.    2 

To  3  gallons  bo.  oil,  18s.;  1  c.  white   lead,  48« 3 

To  7  patent  driers,  lO-s.  (W.;  ,"7  feet  1 1  x  :J   red  deal,  Is.  14rf 2 


2  U 

3  12 

4  Is 

1  : 


•) 

1: 

\ 

0 

7 

',1 

II 
II 

14 
1: 

II 

t; 

K 

I 

11) 

r> 

0 

.'» 

1 

•> 

II 

0 

i:t 

M 

0 

•1 

r. 

\'l 


k;   I' 


;> 

II 
II 

12 

II 

1(1 

II 

If) 

II 

12 

II 

16 

n 

111 

4 

19 

!) 

17 

II 

.") 

II 

0 

4 

17 

0 

0 

II 

r> 

I) 

G 

1) 

4 

ti 

COrXTKli    CASK    OF    Till:    IMTKl)    .STATKS. 


i.sy 


lr«5. 
Kfb.    4. 
Feb.    3. 
Ffl..     4. 


hO.. 


To  1 4    ffct  21  X  1  rt'dar,  \i».;  V.)  iV-et  i:{  l.v  '.  <l<t.. .'.« 

To  i,  !.,  i,  ,■,,  •••••t :»  X  ;{ i»Mlar,  jj  fei-t  :»  x  ii  «»'d!ir,  21  l.-et,  {<</ 

To  1  turnery,  2<(.  (trf.;  4   Ibis.  A  iiit-h  iiuIIm  4  11)8.  2-iiu-ti  iiitiN,  4m 

To  1   quart  l»o.  oil 

To  v5  fcet  f)  X  H  T  X  < J  boards,  n^f.  ftct, :«!« 

To  104  f('»'t8lu-lviiin.:<4»(.  Hrf;  j''^  ft'ist  Kix^  iiiili  pine.  11«.   lOd... 

ToM  feet  inch  j»iiie,  Ic**.;  ,'<,  ,'-,  feet  U  x  '.\  red  pine,  '■i'.ix.  4tl 

To  ,'rt  feet  3  X  :<  ineli  jiine,  Kw.;  2  pairs  5J  incli  brass  bntis  Hx.  4rf. .. 
eb.     •).  To  (v^-ineb  nails,  (J.JJ-ineli  do.,  10;  '>>,  do.,  10  pounds  *i-ineh, 

(KWfi ". 

To  rtf  «lo.,  4». ;  Hi  ]>ieees  :i-ineli  brass  butts,  tiO:{ 

To  r>  dozen  i  I  screws,  '»«.  Hrf. ;  '>  do/en  1|  brass  do.,  iJTti  4H.  M.... 

To  2  dozen  2i  brass  do.,  JC't  '2m.  (irf. ;  ;{  brass  eabiu-loeks.jJOx 

To  24  nails,  assorted,  12'*.;  CM  feet  sbelvinjf,  'Vh.  Ox.  i:U 

To  ;">:{.".  feet  lumber,  «j  i,'"  0«.  SW. ;  212  feet  l-ineh  e.  pine,  :iO,  .i,  2.  Ci. 

:M) 

To  .V.  ^  i"4  f«"«'t  <{  X  U  T  X  ( J  boards,  r)02  feet,  '.V>m 

W  Al;i>-I!0<»M  — MKSS  OliDKI:. 

To  24  dozen   Alsop's  ale.    12x.  12rf. ;    8  dozen  pp.   Tennent's  do.. 

'jH.Ud 

To  :j  dozen  sberrv,(i«.  I'm?.;  4  dozen  Jobnston's  claret,  UCiOx. (W/.  lo, 

fi 

To  1  bag  eojiper.  140,  .i'7  llx.  «</. ;  1  barn-l  crushed  loaf-suyar,  JCGi, 

200  pounds  

To  1  dozen  bams,  £10  14«.,  140;  1  box  macaroni,  !).i.  (nl 

To  1  dozen  large  lio.  ciirrie,  ;SiJ.v. :   1  tin  lard,  Ir*,  2,  ol 

To  1   case  sardines,  200.1)0.  .C7  10«. ;  1  dozen  liakiiig-powder.  14«  . 

To  olives,  24;*.:  100  bams,  jC.'i  Ox.;  I  cask  rilcliard'.s,  4.w 

To  lA  dozen  cujis  and  saucers,  Ifx. ;  H  dozen  soup  plates,  li^x 

To  li  dozen  dinner  do.,  ]f's.;  1.1  dozen  breakfast  do.,  1:5'*.  (W 

To    1    dozen    mold   tumblers,  12.v.  IW. ;    1  block-tin    soui»-tureeii. 

Ws.Gtl 

To  120  boxes  beef  ami  .soup  and  l)ouilli,  llx 

To  4  vegetable  dishes,  24.s. ;  1  tin  tray-waiter.  !>t.  Orf 

To  2  large  wash-basins.  Cm.  11^/. ;  4  ilozen  AUsop's  ale.  jC2  <«/ 

To  1  case  2  No.  2  Moselle,  JL'2  17«.  (W. ;  I  dozen  brand  v.  best,  il'i 

VM.  4(1 ^ 

SINKHII'.S. 

Kntre  bonds. 

To  4  cases  Geneva.  ,i;40:  1  log-book.  7  t.  U'xl 4      7      0 

To  2  cases  Geneva,  .C 40;  20x 2       <•       o 

To  4  eases  Geneva,  jC 40:  208 4      n      0 


.!• 

*. 

rf. 

0 

l'.» 

)i 

II 

10 

0 

0 

)) 

<t 

0 

il 

0 

7 

17 

0 

•> 

«> 

(i 

•J 

1 

4 

I 

4 

0 

0 
•J 

4 

II 

•  » 

•  1 

0 

12 

1) 

1 

1.'. 

0 

10 

l.-| 

111 

,. 

17 

s 

,** 

17 

^ 

l.'l 

12 

i:{ 

11 

:{ 

1 
1 

1 
r> 

1 


t'l        0 


1.-)       0 


11 

:{ 

4 

4 

<» 

it) 

14 


10 

l:! 
17 


r>    I  r> 


1*1 


14 

II 
:{    12 

0       0 


4.' 


KXGIXEKR. 

To  4  kegs  soft  soap,  256s.  lOJ 10 

CAIT.MX. 

To  1  doz.  mongers-all,  Us.  Cul;  1  long  oil-skin  coat,  30s.  0      1b 
To  1  oil-skin  hat.  Ah.  ;  1  pr.  I.  R.  boots,  Xw 1     11»      0 


10 


i:i 


10 
/ 
•> 

0 

II 
II 
li 

I'l 

0 

i) 

0 


[:'27]  nsGo. 

Feb.    7.  To  (5  cask  lime,  54.^  ;  12  w.  w.  brushes,  OO.s 

II  ;-) 

To  1  fire-engine  and  hose 

Feb.  li.  To  l?i  Galen  thimbles,  2}  in  score  for  7-inch  rope,  4« 

To  I  fine  bniss  padlock,  4».  lOrf. ;  1  oil-feeder,  4*t.  (W 

5  1(5 

To  (i  beeswax,  21 ;  6  letherage,  '.)*. ;  G  galls,  turp.,  4s.  17rf (»      0 

;{  6  IG  15 

To  .i  lamp  black,  9 ;  (5  blk.  lead,  Gd. ;  6  red  do,  4  black  G(? 0    It)      0 

To  2  doz.  brs.  screws,  Is.  6d. ;  hooks,  12.v. ;  2  doz.  sheets  emery 0     is      0 

To  one  saw  for  cutting  metal "    10      G 

To  4  bull's  eve  lantherus,  £2  2x 2      2      0 

To  2  U-iueh  I  br.  match-blocks,  558 5     10      0 

To  1  shoe-block 1 


'An: 


I-  ^:^'i' 


lilf''  ■  i; 


■AM 


m  f 


190 


TIJKATV    OF    \VASIII\(JT()N PAPHKH    ACCOMPAXVIXC; 


1 

)      0 

1    II 

(1 

;   i» 

HHIl'   ( ONT. 

IVl).      I),   li)  ;')()•>  Slip.  Nliclviiij;,  7h.  H)d.  ;  4r>:»  T.  T.  A  <i.  tiiiib«r,  jCtl  IH.w.  1<I(L    M      h    nj 

To  ICO  ft.  (i  \  H  ill.  Scotch  tlooriiiff,  4(/ -^    ll!     | 

'I'o'il  ft.  ;>  X  1  n;(l<lt>iil.  Hs.;  ooi)  Hi  X  1 1  hattcii  i»iin' 1      ,«     o 

Id  10 

To'^l)  in.  dcinl-Iockx,  I'i**; ;  iron  chest  liandlcs,  l-^w 1     Ki     n 

To  I  (h>/. '.t  \  4  ill  ho.  ciihiii  door  ho()i(H (i    I'.i     n 

To  ()  Ih.  "JJ  in.  miils,  :!n.  ;  ;{  jirs.  !i  in.  Iirs.  hnttM,  l(« n    1-^     o 

'l"o  ;{  doz.  :'.f  in.  his.  Ncrcw.s, -If.  (W.;   I\   ./„   ;J  x  "J  deal, 'J.'< (i    i;i     i; 

Hi  1.")  I J 

[72H]    -IHC..'.. 

Keh.    ;).   To  I'i  dozen  '|-iiieh  iivni  screws,  I'.N.;  7  ihtzeii  !|-inch  hrass  do,, 

I4« 

Ftdi.  Id.    To  is  nails,  assorted 

To  1  wool  hrad,  '.h.  ti(/.;  12  slieets  saiid-p'iiter,  '2'*.  M 

•>i 

To  I  ;jross  1}  1  screws,  !».•*.;  12d  feet  cedar.  ld« :;  I'.t  ii 

To  i.M'eet  llU:ninroii  jdiie,  14n.;   ,',  feet  :ix-,iinch,  !-x() I  ,>  i; 

•24  17 

To  ;{  horns'  tnrniiij^,  (!«.;   ,'',  feet  '.\\2  deal,  Cw.  (u/ (i  Vi  u 

.')d  feet,  i:*. 

Feb.  i:f.    To'il.',   wron^jht  nails,  (w.;  (i  I'i  nails,  :t d  [)  n 

:{ I 

To  ,',  i:5x-J  deal,  7.'. l.'i  d  11  :; 

'J'o  ()  hrass  7-inch  locks,  21«.;  (i  do.  do.,  1"2«.;  5i  do.  do.,  .">« 1  b  n 

To  ii  dozen  iiiaho;iany  knobs, .')».  (W.;  4  pairs  "2 A-incli  brass  butts, 

i2/< '. d  i:    ii 

To  4  dozen  iron  screws,  (w.;  :{  brass  cap-locks,  ld«.  iul d    hi    (, 

:j«J 
To  I  dozen  small  hrass  screws,  l«.  iul (t      1     r, 

t  Altl'F.NTKKS'    SIOliKS. 

Feb.  Ui.    To  (i  sheets  pure  copper,  iiN.  y<?.;  I'i  pounds  wron-^ht  nails,  :j;'>.s. ..        S      .'.     0 

'>!^  ii»  ■  :; 

To  yo  iViinrh  spikes,  t)N.  f'f?.;  (i  dozen   I  screws,  assorted,  (W d    IJ     ■( 

4 

To  400  feet  llx:}  pine.   £18  fix.  8rf 1-      ti     s 

1,100  feet,  4. 

To  100  feet  :K;5  soft  scantling 1      ,">     0 

To  4S4  feet  lA-inch  pine  boards ;{       (>      1     0 

To:{001 :5    1.')     0 

Feb.  l.\   To  1  wash-basin,  ')n.;  I  wash-jujr,  os 10 

To  1  wash-basin,  'w.;  1  wash-jii;;-,  5«.:  .scales 10 


[72!>J 


I      (I     0 


*To  ■'•,  I,  ,},  and  J-inch  Huron  pine,  120  feet 

To  i,  ^  feet,  2.lx2iinch  do.  do.,  10,1:50  feet,  7» 

To  turning 

To  7  pounds  nails,  assorted,  '.Is.  i\d.;  2  bells  and  sjirinys,  7s,  M.. . 

(i  :{'J 

To  2  cajjes,  Us.;  "2  pnrchase-cranks.  4«.:  4  pillars d 

1              2                     It; 
To  4  headers,  'Zs.;  2  pulls  of  wire  che<!k-spviiig,  28 d 

To  (5  large  plates  glass 'J  2 

To  G  pounds  IJ-inch  nails,  4n.;  i  copper  wire,  2« d 

To  2  dozen  cup-hooks,  l^t ;  1  pound  wrought  brads,  \i8 1 

9 

To  4  pounds  nails,  2«.;  2  dozen  2-incli  screws,  38 d 

(5  1  6 

To  1  dozen  2-inch  brass-screws 0 


0 

:t 

HI 

II 

d 

11 

u 

i;i  I) 

111  0 

14  II 

(i  II 

1  01 

-.  o| 

3  01 


11       ^    ID 

•-'    i;!    I 


1    111 

II 

(•   r.i 

ti 

(1   \-> 

1) 

(1    l;i 

il 

I  i; 

II  '.I 

II 

(1     i; 

1) 

:;    I'.i 

II 
1) 

(1    VI 

li 

II    It 

II 

II   11 

Ij 

I    I'- 

1) 

ll    17 

I'l 

(1    ll'i 

0 

(I     1    ll 


II 

1-^ 

■< 

1- 

I'l 

■^ 

1 

,") 

0 

1) 

1 

w 

:? 

ir. 

0 

1      II     0 


(1 

0 

1.')    Ill 
11     0 

0 

i:i    0 

(1 

10     0 

1       2 
II 
1 

14     » 

i;    1' 

1     0 

II 

-.    0 

0 
10 

3     0 

"TTo 

.  r.u 

19     0 

<M0 

7     3 

COINTKU    CASK    (»K    TflK    I'NITKD    STATES.  \\)l 

[7;{0|       *Mr  Ed(jtoomhc,vonnHl,  to  Mr.  Fish,  Sevrctary  of  Stutv. 

CoNSULATK  OF  THK    UMTKI)  STATKS  OK  AMHKK'A, 

Cope  Toirn,  Xovciuhcr  4,  1871. 

Sin:  III  iiccortlniK!!'  with  instnu'tioiis  icciMvi'd  fioiii  tlio  DopiirttiuMit 
ot  Stiit«'i  <liiU'(l  August  4,  ].S71,X(».  lOL*,  I  liavf  tli(^  honor  to  report 
tliiit  I  hiivc  made  a  thoroii^^h  iiivestij^iitioii  of  the  tniiisactions  of  tho 
Aliibaiiui  at  this  and  other  por^.s  of  the  cohiny  <lini!ig  the  j ears  18<i;J, 
ISlii 

I  (iiid  it  very  ditlicnlt  to  obtain  any  reliahh>  information  on  the  sah- 
{(ct,  for  tiiose  that  furnished  her  witii  aid  and  <'omfort  during;'  that  pe- 
riod a  I'e  not  willinjj  to  a(!kno\vh'd^e  it;  sueh  as  I  have  heen  ahh^  to  ob- 
tain, 1  transmit  herewith  for  the  information  of  thi'  Tnited  States  (Jov- 

ClIlUMMlt. 

1.  Tiiat  I  have  examined  the  records  of  tliis  oHice  thoronjihly,  and' 
(iiiil  no  remonstranee  from  ,Mr.  tlraham  to  Goveinor  Wodeliouse,  after 
Aii^'iist  4,  18G.'J,  a  copy  of  which  is  attached  to  tiiis  dispatcih. 

L*.  Th(^  amount  of  eoal  received  on  board  tlie  Ahibama  in  March,. 
ISiil,  at  this   port,  was  I'OS.]  tons,  as   jter  (h'position   No.  .">;  no  re- 
pairs were  ma(h*  at  this  time;  the  eoal  wasshipix'd  onboard  by  Will- 
iam Anderson  «S:  Co.,  who  acted  as  her  ajjent  at  this  port  and  Simon's 
liny. 

.■>.  She  did  not  siiip  any  crew  at  this  time,  bnt  tlnring  her  stay 
[VM I  in  Simon's  15ay,  in  September,  l.S(>;3,  she  *shipped  eleven  men ;  the- 
party  who  Mhipped  them  has  gone  to  the  diamondtields. 
I.  Tlie  crew  of  the  Tuscaloosa  weie  i)aid  off  at  Simon'.s  Town,  by 
Messrs.  W.  Anderson  &  Co.,  as  i)er  allidi'vit  Xo.  2;  the  olHcers  w  nt  from 
iiiTO  to  Southami)ton,  in  the  mail-steamer,  of  which  Messrs.  \\  .  Ander- 
son &  Co.  are  the  agents. 

r».  The  Florida  did  not  visit  this  colony.     Finding  it  ditlicnlt  to  ob- 
tain information  from     iitside  parties,  1  ap[»lied   to  the  governor,  and 
ii't'oived  an  answer  from  him  regretting  his  inability  to  furnish  me  any, 
as  the  vessels  in  question  were  viewed  as   men-of-war,  and  treated  as 
siicli.    1  then  sent  a  man  to  the  custom-house,  and  they  refusetl  to  allow 
liiiii  to  examine  the  records.     I  addressed  the  governor  again,  asking 
ppnnission  to  copy  the  manifest  of  steamer  Kadie,  of  September  17, 
|1SJ:5.  0.1  rei;eiving  permission,  I  hsid  copies  taken  liere  and  at  Simaii's 
Town,  as  per  depositions  three  and  four.    The  supplies  re(?eived  by  the 
]  Alabama  in  18(J;J  were  shipped  from  this  port  to  Simon's  Bay,  as  [»er  man- 
litest  of  steamer  Kadie,  the  re}>airs  as  per<lepositiou  Xo.  1. 
L  have  the  honor,  sir,  to  be  vour  obedient  servant, 
[SEAL.]  '  W.  W.  EDGFCOMIJ, 

United  iStote.s  Consul. 
Number  of  inclosures,  10;  G  depo.sitions  ;  4  letters. 


(T32| 


Xo.  1. 


Oh  the  arrival  of  the  Alabama  at  this  p>rt  in  August,  18G3,  I  heard. 
[that  the  vessel  required  calking,  and  1  we  •  on  board  to  see  Captain- 
Semnies.  I  arranged  with  him  to  do  the  w  /rk  required  within  a  period 
Df  five  days.     1  calked  her  topsides  and  uecks,  and  when  the  work  was 


*i4i 


mw]\ 


192 


TKEATV    OF    WASHINGTON PAPERS    ACCOMPANYING 


\F<  i 


■*'iM 

gajf 

i 

m 

■ 

B 

coinpleteil,  I  was  paid  the  sum  of  forty  pounds  and  fourtoeu  sbilliii<,',s  by 
the  pavnmster  on  hoard  the  vosael. 

A.  K.  BLUKK, 
Budge  ct*  BlurJCf  Shipirrujlifn. 

Sworn  before  ine  at  Simon's  Town  this  7tb  day  of  October,  1871. 

P.  H.  MAKTIN, 

JuHfice  of  the  Fence  for  the  District  of  Simoti's  Toini. 


Colonial  Ofi-'Ice.  October  M,  1871. 

Sir  :  In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  2l8t  instant,  I  have  the  honor  t(i 
inform  you  that  in  accordance  with  the  request  made  therein,  the  gov 
ernor  has  authorized  the  honorable  the  collector  of  customs  to  allow 
any  person  sent  by  you  for  the  purpose  to  examine  and  to  make  a  copy 
of  the  manifest  of  the  steamer  Kadic,  both  at  this  port  and  at  Simon's 
IJay. 

[  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  vours,  »S:('., 

(HIAIILES  .MILLS, 
(Si^'ued  for  the)  Colonial  Scerctur\j. 

|733j       *\V.  W.  Kdoecomij,  Es»j., 

CoriHul  for  the  i^niteil  States  of  America,  Caite  Toun. 

A  true  copy  from  the  original  exhibited  to  me  this  day  by  W.  W. 
Kilgecomb,  Esq.,  United  States  consul,  Cape  Town. 
Cai>e  Town,  iS'ovembor  1*,  1871. 
I  seal.  I  (r. .].  DE  KOSTE, 

Notary  I'lihlic. 


No.  2. 

Ill  the  matter  of  the  confederate  steamer  Alabama. 

(lordou  Jlennick,  of  Simons  Tovvn,  maketh  oath  and  saith.  that  this 
deponent  was  a  resident  in  Simons  Town,  in  the  colony  of  the  Cape  of 
Good  Hope,  in  the  year  18G3.  That  whilst  this  deponent  was  living  tbere. 
to  wit,  on  the  8th  day  of  August,  18G3,  a  bark  or  vessel  called  the  Tns 
caloosa,  under  Confederate- American  colors,  was  brought  into  the  port 
of  Simons  Bay,  by  the  then  Con  federate- American  steamer  Alabama, 
commanded  by  Captain  Semmes.  That  said  bark  or  vessel  rcmainediii 
said  port  a  considerable  time.  That  whilst  there  the  men  of  said  bark 
or  vessel  Tuscaloosa  were  paid  ofl'  find  received  their  wages  through  the 
firm  of  William  Anderson  &  Company,  who  carry  on  business  as 
[734]    merchants  at  the  aforesaid  *port  of  Simons  Town. 

GORDON  EENNICK. 

Sworn  at  Cape  Town,  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  this  20tU  day  of  October, 
1871,  before  me. 

KEES  FISCHER, 
Justice  of  the  Peace  of  Cape  Town, 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES.  193 

No.  ;j. 

POUT   OF   CAPK   TOWN.  Xo.  23. 

Coiitt'iit  in  the  steamship  K.ulie,  J.  Fowler,  master,  for   Siaions  Bay 
15<S  tons,  no  guns,  18  men. 

Passeugers  or  troops. — British  built,  of  Cape  Town. 
Shippers. 


Marks  iiiid  number  of 
packages. 


I 


li.  B. 


W.  Andersou  &  Co. 


Quantity    and    de- 
scription of  goods. 


Consignees. 


180  ton  coal. 

7  barrels  pork. 

.')  hbds.  rum. 


W.  &  TT.  Anderson 

&  Co. 


I,  James  Fowler,  master  of  the  vessel  above  uamed,  do  declare  that 
the  content  above  written,  now  tendered  and  subscribed  by  me,  is  a  just 
and  true  account  of  all  the  goods  laden  on  board  my  ship  for  this  present 
voyage,  and  of  the  names  of  the  respective  shippers  and  consignees  of 
the  said  goods,  and  of  the  marks  and  numbers  of  the  packages  contain- 
ing the  same. 
7j5]       *Signed  and  declared  before  me,  at  the  customhouse,  at  the 
])ort  of  Cape  Town,  the  18th  day  of  September,  1863. 

JAMES  FOWLER.  Master. 


One  general  sufferance. 


XouTH  Wharf,  September  18, 1803. 
A.  BAYNES,  "^•." 


recapitulation. 


Cargo,  as  within.    Content,  including  : 

British  Possessions:  5  hhds.   rum, 28  galls.,  ex-Aiigclo,  Mauritius. 
Warehoused,  3d  October,  1802. 

C.  WELCH. 

Foreign  :  7  barrels  pork,   12  cwt.  2  (jrs.  0  lbs.,  exCranton,  London. 
Warehoused,  7th  February,  1803. 

C.  WELCQ. 
Searcher's  Office,  18th  September,  1803.    ("leared. 

J.  U.  iAlACAULLEY,  "&" 

Kai)liael  Daniel  Norden,  of  Cape  Town,  Cape  of  Good  Ilope,  clerk, 
maketh  oath  and  saith,  that  the  abovt^  paper,  writing,  or  document,  is  a 
true  trauscrii)t  or  copy  made  by  this  ileponent  from  a  certain  custom- 
lioiise  entry  with  a  declaration  thereon  made  and  subscribed  by  James 
Fowler,  master  of  the  screw-steamer  Kadie,  together  with  the 
[looj  recai)itulation  on  the  back  thereof,  *signed  by  the  respective  offi- 
cers of  customs,  which  entry,  declaration,  and  recapitulation  are 
iliily  filed  of  record  in  the  custom-house  at  the  aforesaid  i)ort  of  Cai>e 
Town. 

R.  D.  NORDEN. 

Sworn  at  Cape  Town,  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  on  this  the  third  day  of 
November,  1871,  before  nie. 

R.  LESURE, 
Justice  of  the  Peace  for  Cape  Towh. 
13  A— II 


«  < 


I  .. 


Ul 


vt 


m 


n'^ 


194  TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON PAPERS   ACCOMPANYING 

No.  4. 

I  hereby  declare  that  1  have  this  day  examined  personally  the  lopoit 
at  the  customhouse  of  the  arrival  in  this  port  ou  the  10th  Septeinlicr, 
1803,  of  the  coasting  steamer  Kadie  (in  the  year  18(l.'i.)  It  states  aslol' 
lows: 

From  Cai)0  Town  to  this  \)otx  and  liack  to  Cape  Town,  liavin;;  on  hoard  to  hi-  sliipphi 
to  tho  Ahihaina :  180  tons  coal,  7  hands  poils,  12  t'wt.  2  <[is.  0  Ihs.,  .'>  harrels  nun.  •,*■: 
gaUons, :{  hales  nierfhandisc. 

Sij^ned  hy  (.'ol lector  of  ciisto7iis. 

G.  W.  BliOWMXG. 

Si<;n<Ml  and  ci-rtififd  ai^  a  triK-  ri'imrt  hy  tin.'  niastiT  ul'  Kadie 

[7:57] 

Simons  Town,  ('a[»»'  of  (lood  JloiJe.  sworn  before  me  this  2d  Novon. 
bcr,  1871. 

V.  ^V.  MAJMIX. 

Justice  of  the  I'mcr. 


.TA^IES  FOWT,];i; 

"J.  w.  wiiiTi:. 


No.  5. 

From  Messrs.  Akerberg«S:  liehrens  book,  shipping  and  hnidii.g  ii-ents, 
Cape  Town : 

March,  18(51. — To  shipping  to  steamer  Alabama,  2()8i  tons  coal,  Sn 
tons  stores,  for  account  of  31essrs.  AVilliam  Anderson,  Saxon  &  Co. 

Raphael  Daniel  Norden,  of  Cape  Town,  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  makcth 
oath  and  saith,  that  the  aforegoing  is  a  true  and  fiiitliful  extract  niaile 
by  this  deponent  from  the  books  kept  by  the  late  iirm  of  Akerbcrga 
liehrens,  shipping  an<l  landing  agents,  Cape  Town. 

It.  1).  N01{1)EN. 

Sworn  at  Cape  Town,  Cape  of  (Jood   lioi>e,  on  this  3d  day  of! 
vember,  1871,  before  me. 

II.  LESUHE. 

'lustkr  of  the  Peace  for  C<q)e  Town. 


ri  ■ 


kit> 


No.  (5. 

Fron,  ]Mr.  K.  S.  Atwell's  book,  bread  and  oiscuit  baker,  Cape  Town: 

[738J        *Ararch  24, 1804.— To  1 3,000  pounds  biscuit  supplied  to  stofiiiu r 
Alabama,  for  account  of  Messrs.  \\'illi;im  Anderson,  Saxon  »!s:Co. 

Raphael  Daniel  Norden,  of  Cape  Town,  Cape  of  (Jood  Hope,  niakctli 
oath  and  saith,  that  the  aforegoing  is  a  true  and  faithful  extract  iiimit 
by  this  deponent  from  the  books  of  Mr.  R.  L.Attwell,  bread  and  bisciii; 
baker,  Cai)e  Town. 

R.  D.  NOKDKN. 

Swiu'n  at  Cape  Town,  Cape  of  (Jood  Hope,  this  3il  day  of  NovtinUM. 
1871,  before  me. 

R.  LESURK. 

Justice  of  the  I'eace  for  Cape  Town. 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    THE    UNITED    .STATES. 


19 


y 


United  States  Consulate,  Cape  Town, 

October,  1871. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  bring  to  your  notice  that  the  Department 
of  State,  Washington,  has  called  npon  me  to  collect  information  rela- 
tive to  the  proceedings  of  the  confederate  vessels  which  tonched  at  the 
Cape  during  the  years  18G3  and  18G4.  more  especially  those  of  the  Ala- 
iiania.  I  tind  I  cannot  obtain  particulars  of  the  stores  and  coals 
supplied  to  the  Matter  vessel  except  from  the  custom-house  records.  I 
ihoiotbre  request  that  you  will  be  so  good  as  to  direct  a  return  to  be 
made  of  all  supplies  which  have  been  shipped  oii  board  the  .Vlabamiior 

other  confederate  vessels,  specifying  the  quantity  entered  to 
jmII]    *each,  and  by  whom  supplied.     1  shall  teel  much  obliged  by  your 

early  compliance  with  tliis  request. 

J  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir.  i<r., 

w.  \y.  jvixiKcoMi;, 

UniU'd  Stairs  Consul. 
His  Kxcellcix-y  Sir  llKNin   liAWKi.'., 

(lorcrnor.  dc.  C<tp<'  of  iioixl  JTope. 


<:oL(>N1AL  Oifu  e,  Octohrr  17,  1871. 
8iu :  1  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the 
!ith  instant,  Mherein  you  request  that  instructions  may  be  issued  for 
pivparation  from  the  custom-house  records  of  u  return,  showing  all  sup- 
plies shipped  on  board  the  Shenandoah  an<l  other  confederate  vessels 
wliicli  touched  at  the  Cape  in  the  year  18(>3  and  18<J1,  and  sjjecifying 
the  quantities  entered  to  each  and  by  Avhom  supplied.  In  reply,  I  am 
iliret'ted  bj'his  excellency  the  governor  to  acquaint  you,  thiit  u\nni  refei- 
I'lice  to  the  honorable  the  collector  of  customs,  it  appeals  that,  as  the 
vessels  in  question  were  viewed  as  *'menof-wur"  and  treated  as  such, 
no  account  was  taken  by  that  oilicer's  depart uKMit  of  the  coals,  «S:c., 
supplied  thereto.  Ilis  excellency  therefore  regrets  his  inability  to  fur- 
nisli  the  information  which  you  desire. 
1  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  vS:c., 

("irAltLi:S  .AIILLS, 
i"lii!  (Sigiietl  lor  the)  Colonial  Sevntdr!;. 

W.  W.  ]-2D(!F,<0Mn,   I']S(1., 

Consul  for  the  Ignited  Stntisof  Aitteyiro,  Cope  Toicn. 
A  true  copy  from  the  original  exhil)ited  to  m*-  tliis  day  by  ^^'.  W. 


IMseeoiiib,  United  States  consul, Cape  Town. 

jSKAL.] 

('aim;  Town,  yoreiiiber  L»,  1871. 


(;.,r.  i)K  KOSTi:, 

Xotary  I'lihtli'. 


rNiTEi)  States  Cunsi  laik,  <'ai'K  Town, 

October  2\,  is: I. 

Sii; :  1  ha\  e  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the 
I 'til  instant,  in  tMiswer  to  mine  of  tlie  0th.  I  regret  that  you  can  give 
mono  information  concerning  the  transactions  of  the  Alabama,  and 
"tlier confederate  vessels  at  this  and  other  pints  of  the  colony,  diiriti 
tlie  years  bSH.'J  and  1804.  By  referring  to  the  Cape  Argus  of  September 
--,  bS(i:?,  \  Hn<l  that  the  Alabama  was  in  Simons  T.ay,  and  that  Cantain 
^cmnies  reports  that  he  is  exjiecting  the  steamer  Ka"di<^  from  Table  Bay 
with  200  tons  of  coals.      I  also  leain  that  the  Kadie  did  clear   from 


II 


H 


'If, 


196 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


[741]  this  port  on  the  1 7tli  of  September,  *1863,  with  180  tons  ot'coiUsaiid 
other  stores  for  Simons  Bay,  and  that  the  coals  and  stores  were  put 
on  board  the  Alabama  at  the  latter  port.  On  application  being  made  at  tlu 
custom-house  (by  a  person  employed  by  me)  to  examine  the  maniloitoi 
steamer  Kadie,  it  was  refused  unless  he  could  show  an  order  from  you. 
Will  you  please  to  order  a  copy  of  manifest  from  this  port  aiid  JSinuuis 
Town,  for  my  use. 

I  liave  the  honor,  sir,  &c., 

W.W.  EDGECOMT., 

United  States  Coimd. 
His  Excellency  Sir  IIenrv  Barklv, 

Governor,  d'c,  of  the  Cape  of  (rood  Hope. 


Protest. 


United  States  Consulate,  Cape  Town, 

Auyust  4,  180.), 

Sir:  From  reliable  information  received  by  me,  and  which  jon 
also  are  doubtless  in  receijit  of,  a  war-steamer  called  the  Alabama  is 
now  in  Saldanha  Bay,  being  painted,  and  discharging  prisoners  of  war, 
The  vessel  in  question  was  built  in  England  to  prey  upon  the  comiiierce 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  escaped  therefrom  while  on  a  trial 
trip,  forfeiting  bonds  of  £20,000,  Avhich  the  British  government  exacted 
under  the  foreign-enlistmen  t  act.     Now,  as  your  government  has  a  treaty 

of  amitj'  tnd  commerce  with  the  United  States,  and  has  uotie 
[742]    cognized  the  persons  in  re*volt  against  the  United  States  as  ;i 

government  at  all,  the  vessel  alluded  toshould  be  at  once  seized  and 
sent  to  England,  from  whence  she  clandestinely  escaped.  Assuming  that 
the  British  government  was  sincere  in  exacting  the  bonds,  you  have  doubt 
less  been  instructed  to  send  her  home  to  England,  where  she  beloii^>. 
But  if,  from  some  oversight,  you  have  not  received  such  instruotions, 
and  if  you  decline  the  resi)onsibility  of  making  a  seizure,  I  would  most 
respectfully  protest  against  the  vessel  remaining  in  any  port  of  this 
colony  another  day.  She  has  been  four  days  in  one  bay  of  the  coloiiy 
already,  and  a  week  i)revionsly  on  the  coast,  within  three  leagues  ol'tlu' 
land,  and  has  forfeited  the  right  to  reuuiin  an  hour  longer  b^-  this  broach 
of  neutrality,  fainting  a  ship  does  not  come  under  the  head  of  nens 
sary  repairs,  and  is  no  ])ruof  that  she  is  unseaworthy,  and  to  allow  iui 
to  visit  the  other  ports  after  she  has  set  the  Queen's  prochunation  on  tlie 
subject  of  belligerent  rights  at  defiance,  would  not  be  regarded  as  in 
accordance  with  the  spirit  and  i)urpose  of  the  document. 

Yours,  with  most  distinguished  consideration  ami  obedience, 

WALTER  (lliAHAM, 

United  States  Consii!. 
His  Excellency  Sir  IMiiLii'  E.  WoDEiKdSE,  Governor. 

True(!opy  of  the  original  on  lile  at  this  oftice. 

[SEAL.J  W.  W.  EIKIECOMBE, 

United  States  ComuL 
Cape  Town,  Oeioher  12, 1871. 


COUNTEK   C^\.SE 


PUKSKNIKD    ON     TIIK    I'AIM'    oK     I'lli; 


GOVERNMENT  (IF  HER  BRITANNIC  MAJESTY 


Tl>   THK 


TRIBUNAL  OE  ARBITRATION 


coNsmriKD 

UNDER  APtTICLE   I  OF  THE  TREATY   COXCHTDED  AT   WASHINGTON    ON 
THE  8ru  MAY,  1871,  BETWEEN  HER  BRITANNIC   MAJESTY 
AND  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA. 


■'  # 


Hi 


Hi  ■ 


[iiij 


Vessel; 

(il'lllM-f 

Opiiiii 


I'ropos 

Eli'ect 

inter 

Allcget 

Exteul 

treat 

]a\T. 

(A, 

1 
(» 


What  i 


1.  Cast 
•I  Viol 

Deeii 
trc 

Case 
;..  Viol 

Si 
f'oriN 
Corn 

1.  Lat( 
Kxp( 
Wall 
IK 
Feui; 
Raid 
Secoi 
VM 
Milit 

Recapi 


[iiij 


^TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PART  I. 

IMl:(il)ICT(1I!V    STATI-.MK.Nr. 


Vessels  to  which  tlio  cliiinis  of  the  United  Stiites  rt;lat(> 

(liMKMal  chaiactor  of  the  cvi(hMK!e  athluciHl  by  the  United  States. 
Oliiiiions  of  contemporary  writers  quoted  1)y  the  Uniti^l  States. .. 


edition. 

J'rospnt 
(ulition. 

I'age. 
I 

Paye. 
20;? 
204 
205 

PART  II. 


.VHUUMKXT   01    TIIK    IMTKl)   .STAIKi   oN    NKilllAI.    DL  IIKS. 

Pnipositions  aflirmed  by  the  United  States 

EtVect  ascribed  to  British  laws  and  rcj^uhitions  as  interpretations  of 

international  law 

Allo|u;ed  duty  of  a  government  to  enforce  its  own  laws  and  regulations. 

Extent  of  neutral  obligations  as  deduced  from  the  three  rules  of  the 

treaty  of  Washington,  and  from  general  i)riuciples  of  international 

law 

(.v.)  Original  ecxuipment,  Ac.,   of  belligerent  vessels  in  neutral 

ports 

(D.)  Admission  of  belligerent  vessels  into  neutral  ports 

First  limitation  suggested  by  the  United  States 

Further  limitation  suggested  by  the  United  States 

What  is  "due  diligence" 


«> 


11 


207 

209 
21:1 


215 


11 

216 

1:$ 

218 

15 

220 

l(i 

222 

21 

228 

I'ART  III. 

l'Ui:CKI>r..MS   Al'l'EALKU  To    IJV   TIIK    I MTKl)    s' AIRS. 

].  Case  of  the  Swedish  ships,  1825 

~.  Violations  of  American  neutrality  in  l/l):?-'!)! 

Decisions  of  the  commissioners  under  the  seventh  ariiclo  of  the 
treaty  of  1794 

Case  of  the  (Jassius 

;.  Violations  of  American  neutrality  during  the  war  carried  on  by 
Spain  and  Portugal  againit  the  Spanish-American  colonies 

Correspondence  between  the  United  States  and  Portugal 

Correspondence  between  the  United  States  and  Spain 

4.  Later  violations  of  the  American  neutrality  laws - 

Expeditious  of  Lopez  agf^iust  Cuba,  1850-51 

Walker's  expeditions  against  Mexico  and  Central  America,  1853, 
1K')5,  1857,  1858,  1859,  and  r^^OO 

Fenian  raids  against  Canada 

Kaidof  18G6 

Second  raid  on  Canada,  1870 

I'aidof  1871 

Military  expeditions  in  aid  of  tlie  Cuban  insurrection 

Recapitulation 


24 

232 

25 

234 

29 

240 

:u 

241 

:n 

242 

32 

243 

34 

246 

•M 

248 

30 

248 

37 

250 

40 

254 

41 

255 

44 

258 

45 

260 

45 

260 

47 

262 

H  \ 


J*.':i'V 


200 

[ivl 

VAKIOl's   COMI  r  AIM"  «•» 


TREATV'    OF    WA.SHIXGTOX. 
•PART  IV. 

TIIK     I  \!T>:i»   *-TATF>    AO  %IX-.r    (iKRAT    BKITAIN 
MIXIIImN'*  «»K    \V.»I^      I'A'.E   4-. 

r: 


-TRAHIC  Iv 


AriiiH  uml  military  Miii»|»litr>  purcha'-^l  l»y  the  I'liitwl  8tat«^ 

Arms  iiixl  military  »iip|»li(r!t  |iiirclia.'«*-<l  l»j  the  0»uf«^erate  .Siair^ .Vi 

iilockiuIe-niniiingan<l  the  Na.s'^ta  trade .V 

False  importance  a.<M.Til*e«l  to  the  prot-laitiation  of  u«-iitrality «• 

Knowleiige  of  facts  imj»iite«l  t«»  the  Iiriti:>h  ;;<»verum«-iit •>• 

KestiictioDs  on  coaling;  at  N;\-vaii  »>:'. 

OriU'iH  of  t!i<>  I'lst  .Faniiarv.  l-rri.  in  r>-laIion  to  Xa-^^an »>.'» 


enrva 
iitioD. 

•■i:u-- 

I'ayf. 

/•a. 

"ill 

*:: 

FART  V. 

IIIK  .--.rMIKi:    »NI>   Xa.-IIVILI.K. 

The  Suiiit«>r 

The  Nashvill.- 

FART  VI. 

THE    H.«»KII»A    AXI»   AUISAMA,      PA'.K   I'i.  ■ 

The  Floridii 

The  Alabama 

FART  VII. 

THK   I.EoKr.IV    AXI.   "HKXAXtwJAH. 

TbeG..or«ia  

The  f<lit'naii(li»a!.     


To 


•.*.«' 

*»#' 


:  1  '      . 


4-   V 


j,!'  ! 


IS't'-.:' 


FART  VIII. 

TliK     (lAKKNCK,      i  \<  i   XY.     AKiIi:.!:.     Tr-^^AI.' MriA.     lAl.I.AlJA^-};}:.   .  IIHMMAI    ;a. 

KETKIHVTHjN. 

The  C'larome,  Tacoar,  An  u«-r.  cin«I  Tii--*caloo*a 1'>J 

ThcTallaha«e»-....". l"-.' 

The  Cliickamauiia lo.! 

The  Retiibiit ioii ]"4 

fv]  FJIRT  LX. 

KIXKITIOX  «iF  CoMKHEKAT}:  «.  Iiri^ii:-    IN    r.s;Ti~ii   r«»!:T-. 

The  Sumter  and  Nashrille IfC 

Execution  of  the  nilcf*  of  Jauaarj' ;il.  I?»i2,  at  Nass;m lo*.* 

The  Florida  at  Xassan '..... llo 

Execution  of  the  rules  of  Januarv  M.  l-»y.  in  other  .  idonies 11! 

The  Florida  at  Barbados ' Ill 

United  States  vessels  at  Barbad<.'S ll'J 

The  Florula  at  Itermuda 1 F'. 

The  Chickamanga  at  Benuada HI 

United  States  veswls  at  Bermada ll'» 

The  Alabama  at  Jamaica ..  11»; 

The  Alabama,  Georgia,  and  Taj»caloo<ii  at  the  Cai»e  t>f  Got«l  Ho[>e lir> 

United  States  vessels  at  the  Cape  of  Good  IIoi»e 117 

Kecapitulatiim 117 

Course  pursued  bv  other  foaiitries Ill* 

1.  Hollaml    .". 119 


COUNTER    CA.SE    OF    OR  HAT    HRITAIX. 


t  ..iirse  pnp»ntd  by  other  countries— Cnntinnod. 

•J.  Hnizil 

;!.  Ktis.-i:» 

4.  France 

Hie  Kappahunnock 

The  Moiu-wall 

5.  Spain  and  I'ortngal 

l'AI?T  \. 

toNCM  SloN. 

Kn'apitulation  t»f  the  arfjiinient  for  Great  Britain 

t  .impensition  claimed  liy  the  I'nited  States.     General  iirinciple 

lUims  lor  private  losses 

llainis  for  national  los?es  by  the  destrntlion  ofpultlic  projjerty  in  the 

.    rnftetl  .States .' 

r»ira»  for  expenditure  alleged  to  have  been  incurred  in  the  pursuit 

o!  coutederate  cruisers 

Claim  of  the  United  States  for  interest 

Krtapitulatiou  of  precetliug  remarks  on  the  measure  of  compensation . 
'  'Dcludinj;  remarks 

ANNEX  vA.) 

Vote  on  the  Jjuestion  rt-ferreil  to  at  psige  12.  ^equipment  of  belligerent 
virssels  in  neutral  i>tirtsi 

ANNEX  (B.) 
Til?  Brititih  and  American  foreign-enlistment  acts 

ANNEX  (L-.) 
i'i>»ition  and  duties  of  the  law-ofticers  of  the  Crown  in  England 


i:;? 


141! 


140 


l.-il! 


201 


(Jeneva 

I'rosrnt 

cilitioii. 

•  ■diticu. 

J'aje. 

rape. 

12(1 

:wa 

1-21 

:Um 

l-'l 

:U34; 

r.>t> 

:UKi 

122 

:U!7 

12:'. 

:?C7 

124 

:if.9 

i:!i 

:J78 

i:!4 

MW 

:!8() 


i:c 

:!87 

140 

:«H 

141 

:'>»> 

141 

::u:; 

:?<>5 


40;^ 


4(W 


I?; 


wnaiiw 


■11 


Thf  ^i 
luiual  of 
Miltuiittt' 
.ippoars 

To  tlie 
lliitish  C 
ii'plywlii 
lIR'Ut  (li.s 
First,  be 


I'lite  i.s 
rant;  tli 
iioii.  inu-s 
tenor  of 
jiease:  ai 
lit"  a  uy  we 
tlic  prope 
plied  thai 
trued  l)y 
the  Ciove 
nity  was 
it  as  of  ri 
duct. 

>^eitlit'i 
>ubj('ct  ol 
rorrespoii 
ieet,  ])viu 
the  positi 
I  lie  rescr^ 
wliieli  wil 


VKSSEl 


IJ.T    JJl 

in  fact,  ju 
had  ton 
tour  vess 
•Sbeiiaiuk 
respect  ol 
ted  8tatei 
account  < 
■wcoiiut  0 
ill  anv  111 


■11 


*PAUT     I 


INTRODrcTORV  STATEMENT. 


The  xoveniinoiit  oi'  Iler  Uiitaiiuio  Miijosty  now  presents  to  tlu*  tii- 
I'liiial  of  arbitration  its  connter  caso,  or  reply  to  the  case    |.,,t i -ii.ir»iu-> 
>iil)mitte«l  on  the  part  of  tlie  I'nited  States,  so  far  as  a  reply  •"■  ■'••'"•'■■"' 
iippoars  to  be  necessary  or  admissible. 

To  the  second  chapter  of  the  American  Case,  which  imputes  to  the 
lliitish  Uovernment  hostile  motives,  and  even  insincere  neutrality,  no 
u'ply  whatever  will  be  ottered  in  this  counter  case.  The  l>ritish  jjovern- 
iiR'ut  distinctly  refuses  to  enter  upon  the  discussion  of  these  charges. 
First,  because  it  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  self-respect  which 
( vt'iy jrovernment  is  bound  to  feel;  secondly, because  the  nnitter  in  dis- 
imte  is  action,  and  not  motive,  and  therefore  the  discussion  is  irrele- 
vant; thirdly,  because  to  reply,  and  to  enter  upon  a  retaliatory  exposi- 
tion, must  tend  to  intlame  the  controversy  which,  in  the  whole  tone  and 
tenor  of  its  case,  the  Jiritish  government  has  shown  its  desire  to  ap- 
iieaso:  and  lastly,  with  respect  to  the  charges  themselves,  if  they  were 
lit"  any  weight  or  value,  the  IJritish  government  would  still  contend  that 
the  proper  reply  to  them  was  to  be  found  in  the  proof  which  it  has  sup- 
plied that  its  proceedings  have  throughout,  and  in  all  points,  been  gov- 
t  nied  by  a  desire,  not  only  to  fulfill  all  clear  international  duties  toward 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,  but  likewise,  when  an  opportu- 
nity was  ottered,  even  to  go  beyond  what  could  have  been  demanded  of 
it  as  of  right,  in  order  to  obviate  all  possibility  of  cavil  against  its  eon- 
duet. 

Xtither  will  this  counter  case  contain  anv  reference  whatever  to  the 
>ubject  of  indirect  losses.  Jler  Majesty's  government  is  engaged  in  a 
(onospondence  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  on  this  sub- 
ject. ])ending  which  this  counter  case  is  ])resented,  without  prejudice  to 
tlie  position  assumed  by  Her  ^Majesty  in  that  correspondence,  and  under 
the  reservations  more  particularly  stated  in  a  note  accompanying  it, 
whiih  will  be.  at  the  same  tinje.  delivered  to  the  arbitrators. 

VESSEL.S  TO  Wllini  THE  ("LA1M8  OF  THE  IXITED  STATES  RELATE. 


;  ^:i^ 


Her  JJritannic  Majesty's  government  believed  itself  to  be,  and  was 
in  fact,  justly  entitled  to  assume  that  the  claims  which  it 
had  to  meet  would  be  found  to  relate  exclusively  to  the  th-'i^ntioMhHi'.'.l'- 
ioHr  vessels  known  as  the  Florida,  Alabama,  Georgia,  and"^  m  i«reMH. 
Shenandoah,  or  some  or  one  of  them ;  these  being  the  only  ships  in 
respect  of  which  claims  had  been  nmde  by  the  Government  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  agaiu.st  Great  Britain.  It  apj.cars  that,  besides  claiming  on 
account  of  all  of  the.se  four  vessels,  the  United  States  now  claim  on 
•icconnt  of  nine  other  vessels,  none  of  which  are  alleged  to  have  been 
i'l  any  njanuer  armed,  fitted  out,  or  equipped  for  war  within  British 


i  i> 


'tk 


m] 


-'it 


M- 


4 


204 


TKKATY    OF    \VAS||IN(JT()X. 


territory.  Tliroc  (»f  thcso  nn'  Htart>«l  to  hjiv«}  boeii  captured,  ariiH'd.iin,! 
einploycil  as  teiidors  by  flio  olllcer  coiiiiiiaiHliii;;  tiiti  Florida  <liuin^  tin 
cruise,  of  that  vessel,  and  one  by  tiio  eoininaiuler  of  the  Aiabaina.  (»i 
two  others,  the  Sumter  an<l  NasliviUe,  it  is  aUejujed  only  that  tiny 
re<!eived  liospitalities  in  iSritisU  ports,  wliiUi  cruisiii;jf  as  ships  ()f  war  (it 
the  (Jonfi'derate  States  ;  of  two  more,  the  TaUahassee  and  ('hi«rkaiiiaii;M. 
that,  having  been  originally  built  in  Knjfland,  and  employed  incairvini; 
carfjfo  to  and  fiom  ports  of  the  (Confederate  States,  they  \\v\v  ((in- 
verted into  ei'uisers  by  the  confederate  government ;  and  oi  the  niiitli. 
the  Jvetribution,  that  her  commander  contrived  on  two  occasions  to 
carry  a  pri/.e  captured  by  liinj  on  the  hi<;h  seas  into  the  tenitoiiiil 
waters  of  an  island  belonginfi  to  llcr  ^fajesty's  dominions,  and  there  ti 

dispose  of  or  destroy  the  ear<;'o. 
\'J\  *As  to  all  of  these  nine  vessels,  but  more  especially  as  to  tiw 

of  them,  it  mij,dit  justly  be  niaintaine<l  that  they  oujjht  not  to  1m 
reckonetl  amonj;-  the  vessels  which  have  j;iven  rise  to  the  claims  },'(>ii(i 
ically  known  as  the  Alabama  claims,  an(i  that  no  complaints  in  rcsiMir 
of  them  oufiht  to  be  considen-d  or  received  by  the  arbitrators.  Iln 
Britannic  ^lajesty's  jiovernment,  however,  has  not  thou<>ht  i)r()p(^i  hi 
raise  this  objection.  It  contents  itself  with  directin;;- the  atteiitioiini 
the  tribunal  to  the  fact  that  neither  in  the  course  of  the  war  nor  dm 
iuff  the  lonj;  i»eriod  which  has  elajtsed  since  its  conclusion  lia\t^  any 
claims  whatever  been  made  upon  (Ireat  Ibitain  by  the  l.'nited  Stativ 
oi\  aci'ount  of  any  of  these  v«'ssels. 

Then;  have  been  further  introduced  into  the  list  of  claims  losses  lo: 
captures  by  two  ressels,  name<l  the  Uoston  and  Sallie,  which  are  iii>r 
mentioned  in  the  Case,  and  expenses  said  to  hav(^  been  incurred  in  tin 
pursuit  of  a  third,  (tlu^  Chesapeake,)  as  to  which  the  (.'ase  is  e(iiially 
silent.  ll<'r  Majesty's  j^overnment  i>resinnes  that  this  has  been  dom' 
throuftb  inadverten(!e.  No  award  can  be  madt^  which  shall  compiclicinl 
or  take  into  account  tlu'  acts  of  vessels  as  t()  which  the  I'nited  Stait- 
have  not  even  allejied  any  failure  of  duty. 

GENEUAL   CIIAIIACTEIJ    OF   THE   J:V!Di:XCl',. 

Ir  woubl  be  suj)erHuous  to  remind  the  tribunal  'ihat  the  coiicliisinn- 
at  wliich  it  will  arrive  must  of  necessity  l>e  formiMJ,  im' 
upon  what  the  (lovernment  of  the  United  States  ni;iv 
allej^e,  but  upon  what  it  shall  be  able  to  prove.  Nor  can  ii 
be  necessary  to  i)oint  out  that,  while  it  is  not  the  duty  of  the  trilnuial 
to  a[)ply  to  the  evidence  i>roduced  on  either  side  ndes  drawn  IVoin  the 
law  or  meth.o«ls  of  orocedure  established  iii  any  i>articular  state,  tiic 
(jredibility  and  vabu»  of  that  evidence  must  i'.^vertheless  bt's  tried  hy 
those  <]feneral  principles  of  reason  and  jastire  nhich  are  ap]>lical>le  M 
all  testimony,  in  whatever  forum  it  may  b  •  <./rtered,  for  M'hatever  ]»iir 
pose,  or  uncier  whatever  circumstances.  Hiu.  it  may  be  ctuivenient  tlmt 
the  attention  of  the  arbitrators  should  at  the  outset  be  diiected  to  tlu' 
character  of  some  portions  of  the  e\  iden<;e  on  Avhieh  the  United  Stato 
rely. 

Much  of  the  evidence  adduced  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  lia^ 
been  also  laid  before  the  arbitrators  by  (ireat  Britain,  either  as  sn|i 
])orting  the  case  of  iler  Britannic  Majesty's  government,  or  as  formiui; 
part  of  the  ollicial  correspondence  and  other  materials  of  wMch  it  was 
proper  that  the  arbitrators  sluuild  be  in  possession  before  proceedinj: to 
adjudicate  on  the  matters  referred  to  them.  Much,  therefore,  of  the 
evidence  on  each  side  i.s  common  to  both,  though  the  two  parties  difler 
in  the  use  which  they  respectively  make  of  it. 


I..   IH  ml    Ch.:t 
1.1     th.-     tVllll-IM- 

ilui-.'il  l>.v  Ih.    I 


COrXTKlt    CANl;    (tl-    (IRF.AT    niMTAIN. 


205 


Anion;;:  tlw  otliiT  diH'iiinnitary  <'\  idcnco  cited  or  icCt'i'n'd  to  in  tho 
Ciisc  t»f  tlic  Uiiitrd  States  iin'  n'|Miits  iiii<l  dispattlies  Irom  <(>ii,smIs  or 
idiisiiliir  ollleei's  of  the  ('idled  Statrs,  who  wcie  «lm  in;;'  the  war,  or  hiivo 
>iiii'0  heeii,  resident  in  jiorts  within  Her  Majeslv's  dondnions.  Ol'theso 
iit'i'soiis  it  may  l»e  assumed  that  they  were  gentlemen  wortliy  of  eredit 
wiit'ii  rclutin^'  anything  witldn  the  ran^e  of  their  personal  knowh'il^e. 
As  to  statements  iinnh'  hy  them  on  I  lie  authority  of  others  the  eredit 
to  be  attached  to  tliese  mnst  depend  in  every  ease  on  the  knowled;^o 
,111(1  vcraeity  of  the  inforniaiit,  in»t  on  tiiose  of  tlit^  report<'rof  tlie  infor- 
mation. Statements  made  on  tlie  ground  of  alh'^ed  notoriety  or  |Mihlie 
riiinor  are  evidence  only — and  that  of  a  very  vayiie  ami  nnsatisfactory 
kind,  since  little  reliance  can  he  placed  on  assertions  which,  from  their 
very  nature,  there  (!an  he  no  means  of  testinj;' — that  a  nnmher,  x'H'itter 
iirk'ss,  of  persons  who  are  themselves  unknown,  and  whose  creilibility 
,iu(l  means  of  information  are  likewise  unknown,  helieve,  or  have  re- 
porttMl,  a  supposed  fact  to  he  true.  Jt  should  he  added  that  these 
iilliw'rs  were,  as  was  natural,  zealous — sometimes  to  indiscretion — in 
(lie  cause  of  their  (lovernment ;  that  they  shared  to  the  full,  with  their 
(oinitrymeii  at  home,  in  the  excited  ami  irritahle  feelin;js  which  are 
^t'licrated  hy  civil  w  ar,  ami  were,  like  their  (Jovermnent,  tirmly  impressed 
with  tlie  erroneous  idea  that  all  rtrmetl  vessels  of  the  Contederate  States 
iiii^rlit,  ill  Ibrei^jn  ports,  to  ho,  regarded  and  treated  as  piratical.  The 
.ulmissioii  of  a  confederate  ship  on  the  same  t«'rins  as  a  United  States 
>lii|)  was  hy  itself,  in  their  view,  an  otleiise  against  the  IJnitJ'd  States; 
,111(1  this  error  led  them  into  many  misconceptions  and  colored  tiirougU- 
iiiit  the  reports  which  tln-y  addressed  to  their  (lovernment. 

The  (lOvernment  of  the  United  States  has  a|>pended  to  its  Case, 
iiul  has  frequently  referred  to  ami  invoked  as  evidence  aj^aiiist 
(iroat  Jhitain,  a  mass  of  coiilederate,  i)a|)ers,  the  ftrealer  i>art  of 
.vliicli  consists  of  correspondence  said  to  have  jtassed  between  per- 
-oii.s  who  were  hired  and  employed  durinj;'  the  war  for  various  piir- 
|i(isi's  hy  the  CfUifederate  j^overnmeiit  and  olhcials  of  that  }>"overn- 
iin'iit,  while  the  rest  is  of  a  private  ami  still  less  authenti(;  char- 
acter. jNIost  (if  these  papers  are  said  to  have  been  "captured 
5J  *at  the  takiii*;' of  Kichmond,  ami  at  other  times ;"  and  they,  or 
such  i)ortions  of  them  as  the  (iovernmeut  of  the  United  States 
ii;is  tlioufiht  tit  to  make  public,  are  now  made  known  to  Her  Britannic 
Miijcsty's  (iovernmeut  for  the  tirst  time.  Of  the  authenticity  of  them 
;iii(l  of  the  manner  in  which  they  came  into  the  possession  of  the 
•  iDvcrmnent  of  tin?  United  States.  Ilcr  l»ritaimic  ^rajesty's  p)vernmeiit 
liiis  no  knowleilyt'  whatever  beyond  that  wiiich  it  derives  from  the 
iliovo-iiientioned  statement,  which  it  w  illin,^ly  accepts  as  true.  Of  the 
iicrsons  by  whom  and  the  cii<-nmstances  under  which  the  letters  were 
>vritt('ii,  and  of  tiie  character  and  cre<liltility  of  the  writers,  it  knows 
:iutliiny  whatever.  They  are  persons  with  whom  this  j^'overnment  had 
nothing  to  do  and  whose  very  existence  was  unknown  to  it ;  and  it  does 
not  admit  as  evidence  a;;ainst  Ciieat  IJritain  any  statements  which  they 
:iiay  have  made  to  those  who  emi)loyed  them  or  to  one  another. 

■Some  notice  must  here  be  taken  of  the  use  whi(di  has  been  made,  iii 
tlie  Case  of  the  United  States,  of  opinions  recently  expressed  by  one  or 
twolivinjif  writers  respecting  the  matters  referred  to  the  tribunal.  One 
ot  these  (l)v.  Bliintschli)  is  a  jurist  of  celebrity,  who,  in  the  short  i)apcr 
^viitten  by  him  on  the  subject,  has  with  great  proi)riety  guarded  him- 
self against  being  supposed  to  pronounce  any  decisive  opinion,  frankly 
atlniitting  the  inadequacy  of  his  information,  which, indeed,  he  appears 
to  have  derived  entirely  from  a  speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the 


•If 


w 


106 


TREATY    OF    WASIIINfiTOX, 


United  Stntt's.  On  this  point,  liowevcr,  Ifer  Britannic  Majesty's  jijoveru- 
uient  lias  lint  one  remark  to  make.  Wliatever  qualifications  these  writ- 
ers might  l)e  found  to  possess  lor  forming  a  Judgment  on  the  question 
if  they  had  been  acquainted  with  the  facts — a  matter  on  whicli  IIci 
JMajcsty's  government  has  no  opinion  to  express — they  are  not  the  poi- 
sons selected  as  arbitrators  in  this  case.  The  eminent  persons  v.lio 
have  been  so  selected  vill  form  their  conclusions  under  the  (letinitc 
sense  of  responsibility  proper  to  a  high  and  regularly  constituted  judi- 
<*ial  tribunal,  after  hearing  both  sides,  and  upon  a  full  and  comiiletc 
knowledge,  such  as  no  man  can  possibly  have  i)ossessed  before,  of  all  llio 
facts  of  the  case;  and  Jler  IJritannic  Majesty's  goverinnent  is  well  as- 
sured that  they  -will  feel  it  to  be,  as  it  is,  their  iirst  duty  to  form  thosi' 
conclusions  for  themselves,  upon  the  facts  an<l  arguments  brouglit  1k' 
fore  them,  absolutely  uninlluenced  by  any"  (►pinions  which  any  writer. 
be  he  Avho  he  may,  has  permitted  himself  to  express,  whether  on  mn- 
side  or  on  the  other. 

It  is  well  known  to  the  arbitrators  that  when,  on  former  occasions  re 
corded  in  history,  jurists  have  undertaken  to  determine  the  merits  m 
international  (piestions  actually  in  controversy,  the  judgments  so  pm- 
nounced  have  been  held  questionable,  ;is  open  to  the  suspicion  of  parti 
sanshi[>,  and  have  in  fact  been  often  inthienced  by  a  bias,  tli<'  precisi' 
causes  of  which  it  might  be  ditlicult  to  ascertain.  This  alone  is  siilli 
cient  reason  why  weight  should  not  be  assigned  to  opiiiions  j)ut  lorwrnl 
jtost  litem  moiam. 


Wi 


;••] 


*  P  A  11  T     I  I 


ARGUMENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  ON  NEUTRAL   DITIES, 


rKorosiTioNf>  ArFiimr.D  ev  i  iik  inited  st\ti:s. 


Ill  Tait  III  ot'  the  Case  of  tlie  Unittnl  States  an  oiuloavor  has  been 
iiiiido  to  furnish  the  arbitrators  with  a  definition  of  the  dn-    p^,;,.  ,,.  .A,g„. 
tieswhic'h  Great  IJritain,  as  a  neutral  power,  was  bound  to  ;T;t[/„'nf.^tru'i'i«.' 
observe  toward  the  United  States  during  the  war.    At  the  '"'• 
,lo>;c  of  an  elaborate  dissertation  on  this  subject,  the  Government  of  ilie 
L'uittHl  States  sums  up  the  conclusions  which  it  conceives 
itself  to  have  establishe<l,  in  the  form  of  twelve  proposi-  ii,,„',ibj"t'i.' n'.i".i 
im<.    These  propositions  it  re<;ards  as  governing  the  ques- 
tions involved  in  the  claims  which  it  submits  to  the  arbitrators. 

Her  Majesty's  government  believes  that  it  will  adr))t  the  course  inost 
loiiveuient  to  the  tribunal,  by  explaining  at  once  and  in  the  lirst  place 
how  far  it  assents  to  the  propositions  laid  down  by  the  United  States 
ami  liow  far  it  dissents  from  them ;  examining  afterward,  so  far  as  may 
lie  necessary,  the  grouiuls  on  which  the  conclusions  of  the  United  States 
are  formed,  and  stating  its  own  conclusions  on  such  points  as  appear  to 
lie  in  dispute. 

The  propositions  advanced  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  are  the 
following:' 

•'].  That  it  is  ihe  duty  of  a  in  iitral  to  preserve  strict  and  impartial 
neutrality  as  to  both  belligerents  during  hostilties." 

Tlio  British  government  v.illingly  assents  to  this  i)roposition.  Xo 
line,  indeed,  has  yet  been  found  to  deny  that  it  is  the.  duty  of  a  neutral 
power  to  be  neutral;  or  that  lu'utrality  is,  l)y  its  very  detinition,  a  con- 
dition of  impartiality  in  matters  relating  to  the  war:  or  lo  allirin  that 
it  is  possible  to  be  neutral  as  to  one  of  two  belligerents  without  being 
neutral  as  to  the  other. 

"-.  That  this  obligation  is  iiulei)endeut  of  municipal  law," 

Tlie  i'.ritish  government  accepts  this  proposition  also. 

"'<).  That  a  neutral  is  bound  to  eidtuce  its  municiiKil  laws  and  its  t-x- 
HUitive  proclanuition,  and  that  a  belligerent  has  the  right  to  ask  it  to 
ill)  so,  and  also  the  right  to  ask  to  have  the  powers  conferred  upon  the 
neutral  by  law  increased,  if  found  insulticient." 

The  Uritish  government  does  not  dispute  that  a  belligerent  govern- 
ment may,  if  it  think  tit,  ask  for  any  of  these  things.  IJut  that  a  neu- 
tral jiower  is  under  an  international  obligation  to  comply  with  the  re- 
quest, or  to  enforce  its  muni<Mpal  laws  an<l  all  ])roclamations  or  orders 
issued  by  the  executive  government,  is  far  from  being  universally  true; 
t  is  admissible  only  under  very  material  (pudilications,  which  >\ill  be 


(.'ase  of  the  Uiiitfil,.Stat('~<,  pp.  Jio  d  '<</. 


208 


TRKATV    OK    WAS[[IN(;tOX. 


:!' 


'U 


n'lm 


l)rcscutly  stated.  Still  less  .iui  it  be  adinitted  ♦(>  be  j;eneiiilly  trm. 
fcliat  a  beilif;ereiit  ixnver  has  a  rijiht  to  call  upon  the  neutral  shitc  to 
make  changes  in  its  dou/jstic  lejiislation. 

"1.  That  a  neutral  '^  bound  to  use  due  diligence  to  prevent  the  littin;; 
(uit,  arming",  or  ecp.ipping  within  its  jurisdiction  of  any  vessel  wiiu]^^ 
it  has  reasonable  ground  to  believe  is  intended  to  cruise  or  ciui'v  mi 
war  against  a  rower  with  which  it  is  at  ])eace. 

'•o.  That  -a  neutral  is  bound  to  use  like  diligence  to  prevent  tliocdu. 
struction  « i  such  a  vessel. 

"0.  Tiiat  a  neutral  is  bound  to  use  like  diligence  to  i)revent  tlio  di' 
partPiC  from  its  jurisdiction  of  any  vessel  intended  to  cruise  or  ciirn 
on  war  against  any  jmwer  with  which  it  is  at  peace,  such  vessel  liuvini; 
been  specially-  adapted,  in  whole  or  in  part,  within  its  jurisdiction,  t" 
warlike  use. 

"7.  Tliat  a  neutral  may  not  permit  or  suffer  either  belligerent  to  innki 
use  of  its  ports  or  waters  as  the  base  of  naval  operations  against  tin; 
other. 

"  8.  That  a  neutral  is  bound  to  use  due  diligence  in  its  ports  or 
waters  to  ])revent  either  belligerent  from  obtaining  there  a  renewal  or 
augmentation  of  militarj-  supplies,  or  arms  for  belligerent  vessels,  or 
the  recruitment  of  men." 

(rreat  Britain  adheres  to  the  three  rules  inserted  in  Article  VI 
[CJ  of  the  treaty  of  *Washington,  and  accepts  them  in  the  words  in 
which  they  are  there  expressed,  while  it  considers  those  rules  as 
exceeding  in  some  material  res])ects  the  obligations  which,  indepeiid 
ently  of  them,  could  have  been  established  by  international  law  against 
a  neutral  power  free  from  all  engagements  on  the  subject,  direct  or  in- 
direct, with  a  V)elligerent.  The  l>ritish  government  is  willing  to  (liscus> 
the  construction  of  these  rules,  but  declines  to  admit  any  deviation  from 
or  enlargement  of  them.  The  statement  that  a  neutral  government  -'is 
bound  to  use  like  diligence  to  prevent  the  construction  »>f  such  a  vessel" 
a]>[)ears  to  Her  Majesty's  government  to  be  such  a  deviation  orenlaiirc 
nient.  It  is,  in  fact,  a  sim[»le  interpolation.  Nor  ciin  the  i)rop()siti(iib 
numbered  7  and  S  be  accepted  as  a  curcect  representation  of  the  secoml 
and  third  rules. 

'•  !>.  That  when  a  neutial  fails  to  use  all  the  means  in  its  jxtwertu 
prevent  a  brea(!h  of  the  neutrality  of  its  soil  or  waters,  in  any  of  the 
foregoing  respects,  the  neutral  should  make  eompensaiion  for  the  in 
jury  resulting  therefrom."' 

The  IJritish  government  does  not  admit  this  projiosition  as  it  stands. 
but  it  agrees  tliat,  where  an  ai)pre('iable  injury  has  been  directly  I'aiiscd 
by  a  vioIat'Mu  of  a  (tlearly-ascertained  international  duty,  suitable  veiia- 
ration  o>  giW  to  be  made  to  the  injured  party. 

"•  10.  That  this  obligation  is  not  <lischargi'd  or  ai  rested  by  the  diaiiyi* 
of  the  otl'ending  vessel  into  a  publi(!  man-of-war. 

'•  11.  That  this  obligation  is  not  discharged  by  a  fraudulent  attempt 
of  the  olVendiwg  vessel  to  evade  the  provisions  of  a  local  municipal  l;nv. 

*' IL'.  That  tln^  olfense  will  !iot  l>e  di^posited  so  as  to  release  the  lia 
bility  of  the  neutral  even  by  the  entry  of  the  ollending  vessel  in  a  port 
of  the  belligerent,  and  there  becoming  a  man-of-war,  if  any  part  of  the 
original  l'rau<l  continues  to  hang  about  the  vessel. 

Jler  Majesty's  government  must  observe,  with  all  respect  for  tiio 
Government  of  the  United  States,  that  it  can  neither  admit  nor  deny 
])ropositions  to  which  it  tinds  itself  unable  to  attach  a<listinct  meaiiin;;. 
it  is  not  for  the  British  government  to  contend  that  any  obligation. 
either  of  a  government  or  of  an  individual,  which  has  not  been  fiillilU'd 


COUNTER   CASK    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


209 


can  1)0  (lisc^liarged  by  snbsoquont  proceodings,  siicli  as  are  here  snp- 
poseil,  of  otiiers  parties.  IJiit  if  it  be  meant  to  su^ij^'est  that,  in  any  sneh 
,iis(',  tlic  default  of  the  neutral  power  i.s  not  liinircd  to  the  a(!ts  done  or 
.  initted  to  bo  done  on  its  i>art,  within  its  own  territoiy,  but  is  to  be 
(It'tMiiod  a  continuin<;  default,  or  series  of  defaults,  during;  the  whole  or 
<m]i}  part  of  the  subsccpient  proceedin,i;s  of  the  ott'endinj;'  vessel  bryond 
its  jurisdiction,  the  r>ritish  j^overnnient  ninst  demur  alto<;other  to  sueh 
a  doctrine,  as  uidcnown  to  international  law  and  opposed  to  reason 
and  j>rinciple. 

AUGIMENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. — EFl'ECT  ASCRIirED  TO  UniTISII 
LAWS  AND  UEOULATIONS  AS  INTEIIPRETATIUNS  OF  INTERNATIONAL 
lAW. 

The  differences  which  exist  between  the  Iicitish  government  and  that 
(if  the  United  States  arise  partly  in  the  statemeiit  of  prin- 
ciiiles,  but  more  in  the  application  of  them  to  facts  admitted  iinii-T/hATi '■!„'!! 

of  proved.    The  latter  government  has  prefixed  to  its  twelve  iM-.t, ,.t  „.i. - 

pnipositions  a  lengthened  argument,  which  appears  to  be 
il('si;,nied  to  i>rove  that,  if  not  true  in  themselves,  they  are  true  against 
Ciiciit  Britain  ;  ami  that,  if  true  in  themselves,  they  ought  to  be  :'.;';>''"d 
aj^aiust   her  with  exceptional    and  pecular  rigor.     This  argument  ai>- 
iniirs  to  the  Briti  .h  'government  to  contain  errors  of  the  gravest  kind. 

The  source  ^^'  :•  <-  errors  is  manifest.  The  Government  of  tlie 
Tiiitcd  States  ■  •  icistied  to  rely  upon  the  three  rules  embodied  in 
the  treaty,  coiqiied  witu  the  general  principles  of  international  law  not 
inconsistent  with  them,  as  sutlicient  to  sui)port  the  claims  urged  against 
ilrcat  Britain.  It  desires,  therefore,  to  persuade  the  aibitrators  to 
apply  to  the  conduct  of  CJreat  Britain,  not  the  general  standard  of  iieu- 
tial  obligation  which,  under  corresponding  circumstances,  they  would 
apply  to  the  United  States,  or  to  any  other  power  which  had  accepted 
those  rules,  but  a  stricter  and  more  rigorous  standard,  drawn  from  the 
iiiiinicipal  lawsof  (Ireat  Britain,  from  administrative  acts  of  the  British 
;;overmiient,  or  from  declarations  of  Ibitish  statesnu'U. 

The  positions  contended  for  by  the  United  States  are  in  substance  as 
tollows : 

1.  The  municipal  laws  of  Cheat  Britain  and  the  admlnistrativvi  acts 
(if  her  government  are  to  be  •.  i^gardetl  as  defining  as  against  herself  her 
niiic('i)tion  of  her  iuternation;il  (.laties.  AVhat  these  laws  or  acts  prohibit, 
she  nuist  be  assumed  to  reravd  :  -^  prohibited  by  the  law  of  nations,  and 
hy  that  standard  she  iw.  t  '••  tried.  In  short,  where  her  couce])tion  oi 
international  duty,  thus  ii;o;t  (<••>  appears  to  fidl  short  of  the  common 
standard,  it  is  to  be  disregavi'  ' :;  in  every  other  ease  it  is  to  be  assumed 
iis  the  measure  of  what  sh  •■  ' ..  to  other  nations,  though  not  as  the 
measure  of  what  other  nations  owe  to  her. 

2.  Independently  of  this  theory.  Great  Britain  is  under  an  in- 
"]       ternational  obligation  to  *ex<'eute  her  municipal  laws  a.ni  'Mjforce 
her  proclamations  and  ordinances  where  they  aie  for  the  auv  ii: 
tiiffe  of  other  nations. 

;{.  In  the  performance  of  these  duties  Great  Britain  is  bound  to  use 
■due  diligence,"  by  v  '  ii  h  is  meant  ni  exerc'se  of  active  vigilance  and 
ill!  ertectnal  use  of  a..  •>      means  wiihin  the  power  of  the  government. 

4.  Failing  to  use  this  '-^  'Higeiice,  Great  Britain  is  bound  to  make 
eonipeiisatiou  for  any  iuju;;   iC^uLing  from  such  failure. 

It  is  necessary  to  state  these  position^  clearly,  because  they  are  ex- 
liressf'd  with  some  vagueuess  iu  tlie  Case  of  the  United  States. 
14  t~n 


■;."«  (itiBsi 


^■i 


If  4 


I 

I" 

w  '■ 


210 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON. 


that  whatever  the  laws  of  a 
"-iirity  or  interests  of  otlici 
rohibit  by  force  of  an  inter 

>  as  groundless  as  it  is  itii 


Such,  then,  is  the  general  measure  of  neutral  duties  which  the  Gov 
ernnient  of  the  United  States  itas  adopted,  and  endeavors  to  i»'rsii;iii,. 
the  arbitrators  to  adopt,  in  support  of  its  claims  against  (Ireat  llritiiin, 

To  state  the  lirst  of  this  series  of  positions  is  to  confute  it.  Jf  it  wtn. 
u  true  assumption  that  the  municipal  laws  of  a  state,  wherever ^tlitv 
inohibit  acts  which  may  aflect  the  security  or  interest  of  other  st'itis. 
must  have  been  founded,  not  on  considerations  of  policy  and  expcdicucv. 
but  on  conceptions  of  international  obligation,  it  wouhl  nevertlulcsslM' 
impossible  to  contend,  with  any  show  of  reason,  tha*^,  by  these  (;()ii(c||. 
tions,  and  not  by  the  general  rules  of  the  law  of  n-Viions,  the  statcwas 
to  be  judged  in  any  international  controversies  in  which  it  might  bcconu. 
engaged.  Such  a  rule,  it  is  evident,  would  i>roduce  the  most  fantastk 
consequences.  In  place  of  a  common  and  e(pial  standard  of  obli<;iit:oii. 
we  should  then  have  a  varying  and  uneipial  one,  varying  with  tlie 
nations  to  which  it  was  applied  and  with  the  notions  of  duty  whkli 
they  might  from  time  to  time  entertain.  It  would  be  as  reasonable  to 
contend  that  a  <iuestion  between  juivate  litigants  ought  to  be  decided, 
not  by  the  law,  but  by  what  the  defendant  had  supposed  to  be  tiie  law. 
])rovided  that  the  plaintiff  could  show  that  the  difference  was  in  his  own 
favor. 

It  is  not,  however,  a  true  assui.  ^lion 
state  prohil)it  in  matters  affecting    i 
states,  it  must  have  held  itself  bound 
national  obligation.    This  is  a  hypothe. 

reasonable;  fortius  ])rimary  and  immediate  object  of  municipal  law  is 
the  protection  of  the  security  and  interests  of  the  state  itself  and  its 
citi/ens,  and  it  is  clear  that,  w  irh  a  view  to  this  object,  it  may  bo,  and 
lieciuently  is,  exi>e(lient  to  [uohibit,  in  relation  to  other  states,  acts  not 
l)roliibited  by  the  law  of  mitions.  The  theory  of  the  United  States 
would  assume  that  this  never  is  or  can  be  expedient. 

This  observation  ajjplies  with  all  its  force  to  those  municii)al  laws 
which  are  sometimes  styled  "neutrality  laws.''  Such  laws  belong  to  tin 
class  whici),  in  the  codes  of  some  European  nations,  are  described  ns 
having  for  their  object  the  protection  of  the  internal  and  external 
security  of  the  state.  Thus,  by  the  i)enal  code  of  France  it  is  made  an 
offense  to  levy  or  enroll  sohlieis  without  the  authority  of  the  govern 
nient,  and  i)enalties  of  various  degrees  of  severity  are  denounced  against 
any  persons  who,  by  acts  not  api)roved  by  th  -  government,  may  have 
exposed  French  citi/ens  to  reprisals  or  the  state  to  a  declaration  of  war. 
These  i)rovisions  have  been  adopted  in  the  jienal  code  of  the  kingdom 
of  Italy,  in  that  of  the  Netherlands,  and  by  other  countries. 

The  law  known  in  England  as  the  Ibreign-enlistment  act  of  1S19  be 
longs  to  the  same  class.  The  considerations  ou  which  it  is  founded  are 
thus  stated  in  the  preamble  : 

Whereas  tho  ciili.stiiioiit  or  eiif^iiffciuiMit  of  His  MiiJost,v',s  subjects  to  .servo  in  war 
ill  lorci^fii  service  witlioiit  His  Majesty's  license,  and  the  Uttiii;^  out  and  e(iiiii)i)iiii,'aiiil 
anninff  t)f  vessels  by  His  Majesty's  subjects  without  His  Majesty's  license,  for  waiiiki' 
operations  in  or  a^uiust  the  dominions  or  territories  of  any  foreign  prineis  st.ite,  m 
jmtenttite,  or  persons  exercising  or  assuming  to  exercise  the  powers  of  governiiiL'iit  in 
or  over  any  foreign  country,  colony,  province,  or  part  of  any  province,  or  against  tliu 
«hij)s,  good's,  or  mereluindi.se  of  any  reign  prince,  state,  jiottintate,  or  persons  iifon'- 
Httid,  or  their  subjects,  mai/  he  pnJHdiLial  to  and  tend  to  indaii<nr  the  peace  and  ifclfarv of 
this  kingdom ;  and  whereas  the  laws  in  force  are  uot  sutlicieutly  etlectuul  for  prevtutiu^ 
the  same  :  be  it  therefore  enacted,  &e. 

Laws  of  this  kind  serve,  among  other  purposes,  that  of  enabling  or 
assisting  the  state  which  enacts  them  to  discharge,  when  a  neutral  in 
war,  the  duties,  and  protect  the  rights,  of  neutrality,  and  they  muy 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


211 


theroforp,  with  porfoct  propriety,  bo  doseribed  as  having  that  object  in 
view.  Hut  their  main,  thongii  not  always  their  sole,  purpose  is  to  le- 
straiii  whatever  may  tend  to  imperil  the  relations  of  the  state  with  for- 
ei'Mi  powers;  they  are  framed  on  those  <;onsi<lerations  of  expediency  by 
flliich  all  legislation  is  governed  ;  and,  as  they  may  stop  short  in  some 
respects  of  the  provisions  of  international  law,  so  they  may  transcend 
tbf'iii  in  others. 

It  lias  sometimes  been  argued,  indeed,  though  not  with  success,  th;it 
the  law  of  nations  should  be  regarded  as  furnishing  an  interpre- 
[8]  tation  of  the  foreign-enlistment  act,  *au<l  eontining  its  scope  to 
acts  which  can  be  shown  independently  t6  be  within  the  prohibi- 
tinns  of  that  code.'  Hut  that  the  act  should,  on  the  contrary,  b*^  viewed 
as  extending  the  prohibitions  of  the  law  of  nations,  was  never,  to  the 
kiio\vledg<*  of  Her  A[ajesty's  government,  contended  by  any  one,  and 
siicii  an  argument  would  certainly  receive  no  attention  from  any  judicial 
tiilmnal.^ 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  has  appealed,  in  support  of  luis 
ciToncous  notion,  to  certain  English  authorities;  and  tlic  manner  in 
winch  it  has  referred  to  them  (taiiuot  be  left  unnoticed.  Tiie  following 
st'iitence  is  given  as  a  (pu)tation  from  a  dispatch  signed  by  l*]arl  lius- 


Hiuiientof  tlio  cnmiscl  for  the  dciftiiidaiits  in  tlio  AlcxaiKhiii  cjiso,  (Appeii- 


ami  1  iiiii  !tt"  o|)iiii()ii  that  the  case  statu'il  by  Mi".  Curtis 
(if  the  third  section." 

V  afrcrward  wrote  a  fiirthiM' opinion  to  the  sanu!  «'ffe(;t,  holdinjj;  that  "  all 
'    "■  '  '      '  ■         '■  '  '        1  ^'  -      --  !       ^^,.,^  fontrarv  to 


Mv.    I; 


.Mr.  I;i'<i;are  atrcrward  wrote  a  tnrtln'r  opinion  to  tlio  sanu!  ettect,  lioldmjj;  that  "  all 
tiiidiiif;  witli  a  lu'Ilijfcrent  in  ships  of  war,  ready  eiinipprd  for  service,  was  contrary  to 
llif  law  of  tlic  ITnited  States."     "  The  accompanying;  prohiltition  in  tlie  statute  of  all 


M' 


:    ? 

i. 


1  |inciiic  policy  WHICH  iiiey  conHccrate  as  our  iiiiitiaiiieiiiai  law.  jiie  iranieiH  oi  ooiu 
f  kiKic  lurfvcttji  lidl  that  they  wnw  (liiijiin»  to  oitr  cilizniH  rit/hts  nhkh  (he  law  of  iiatioua 
n-id  Ihi'iH  to  exercise  ill  yood  faith  for  commercial  purpoHes.  They  knew  the  jirico  they 
t!  paying  for  peace,  lint  they  were  willinj;  to  pay  it.  This  net  is  a  proof  of  it." — 
liiiidiis  ot  AttorneyH-Cleiieral  of  the  United  States,  vol.  iii,  pp.  73rJ,  741 ;  Appendix  to 


British  Case,  vol.  v,  pp.  360,  aUU.) 


•  i:  •*» 


•'i 


212 


TREATY   OF   WASHINGTON. 


i( 


st'll:  "That  t?ie  foroij^n-onlisttiuMit  act  is  i.ittMidod  in  ai<l  of  tlic  duties 
*  *  of  a  neutiiil  nation."'  ^Vliat  Aveiii  tlie  words  «)f  Earl  liiisscin 
They  were  tlicsc :  "  That  the:  foroiHiicidistiacut  ai;t,  wliich  was  iiitt'iidcd 
in  aid  of  the  duties  and  ri</hts  of  a  nciiUal  nation,  can  only  be  applied;' 
&c.  The  meaning  of  the  sentence  is  altered  by  leavinjif  out  two  of  the 
most  important  words.  Ayaiii,  the  report  of  a  eoininission  appointeil 
in  18G7  to  <:onsider  the  laws  of  (lieat  IJritaiu  "available  for  the  eiifoico- 
jnent  of  neutrality,''  is  thu.-.  referred  to  : 

'J'lic  tiiliiiiial  <»f  ailiitiation  will  siarcli  tho  wliolo  of  tliat  report,  and  of  its  viiridiis 
ap|irii(lix('s,  111  vain  to  llnil  any  iinlifation  that  tliat  (listinynisiuMl  body  iuiii^iiM(|,(,i 
tliou;;lit,  or  lidifvcd  tliat  tlif  iiicasiin's  wliicli  tlicy  rccoiniiiciKlcd  Avcrc  not  "  in  full 
fonforniity  widi  international  oblij^atioiLs."  On  tlie  contrai'y,  tlie  coMiniis.sioiici.s  suv 
that,  HO  far  as  they  can  see,  tIk'  adoption  of  the  reeomnieiidations  will  hiini;-  tliciiinni. 
clpai  law  into  full  ('onforniity  with  the  international  ohli<ratioim.  Viewinj;  tlicniKts 
in  the  lij;ht  of  their  powers  and  of  their  instructions,  tho  United  States  feel  lIieiiiM'lv,s 
jnstilied  in  asking  the  trilninal  to  assiiiiie  tliat  that  enuncMit  body  rej^arded  tin:  acts 
which  they  proposed  to  prevent  by  hiffislation  as  forbidden  by  iiiteniational  law,-' 

AVhat  is  the  i)assa<xo  whieh  the  Governuient  of  the  United  States  li;i> 
referred  to,  but  has  letraiiied  from  j'Xtractiny  ?     It  is  this: 

hi  vuikliKj  Ihe  fdrcfiohig  rcannmciKhiluni.i  ?(•«•  hurc  not  fill  oiirnclrcx  Ixnnid  Id  ('o»*iVic 
irhtllirr  ICC  ircrc  ciricdiiit/  what  cmild  arlnnllij  he  n(jiiiiril  h;/  iiitcrnalioiKil  line,  but  \v(\  ,iit. 
of  opiiiion  that,  if  llio'^e  reeoinineiKhitions  should  be  adopted,  the  municipal  law  ol'tliis 
realm,  availabh;  for  tlici  enforcenK-nt  of  ntMitrality,  will  derive  increased  etliciemy, and 
Mill,  so  far  as  w»<  can  see,  have  been  brought  into  conformity  with  your  M;ij('st\'s 
international  obli<j,ationb.' 

[0]  *Thna  by  leavinjj  out  the  words  in  whieh  the  conunissioiieis 

observe  that  their  recommendations  may  exceed  the  rccpiiie 
nients  of  international  law,  and  by  nsino-  jn  one  sense  words  which  (ns 
tho  context  proves)  they  employe<l  in  another,  they  are  represented  as 
sayinj*'  the  very  thins  ^vhicli  they  ex])ressly  guarded  themselves  from 
beiiiji'  supposed  to  say,  .anu'ly,  that  all  the  acts  which  they  i)rop()s('(l  t" 
Urohibit  were,  in  their  Judgment,  already  forbidden  by  international 
law.* 

The  (t0\  eminent  of  the  United  States  further  assumes  that  the  same 
false  i)rincii»le  is  to  be  applied  not  oidy  to  laws,  but  to  the  proclama- 
tions, orders,  and  regulations  issued  during  a  war  by  neutral  nations, 
These  also  are  to  be  supposed  to  prol  bit  nothing  which  the  govern 
ment  that  issues  them  does  not  believe  to  be  interdicted  by  international 

^iW. 

iTer  INIaJesty's  government  had  supposed  that  the  nature  of  tluse 
acts  and  (uders  was  a  thing  i)erfectly  well  understood  by  the  LTnited 
States,  as  it  certainly  is  by  maritime  nations  in  general.  They  are 
universally  nnderstoo«l  to  be  acts  done  in  the  frt^e  exercise  of  that  rij;lit 
uhi(;h  every  sovereign  state  v)ossesses  to  reguhite  the  access  of  W 
ligerent  vessels  to  its  ports.    They  convey  no  admission  whatever  that 


'Case  of  the  United  States,  p.  108. 

-Ibid.,p.  17<). 

■'See  Kcjiort  of  the  Commission,  p. 5  ;  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  iii ;  Appendix 
to  Case  ot  the  United  States,  vol.  iv,  p.  Hi. 

■•  At  paye  117  of  the  Case,  the  judge  of  the  high  court  of  admiralty  (Sir  R,  J.  Pliilli- 
more)  is  cited  as  having  stated  (very  justly)  that  the  act  of  Otli  August,  1870,  has  tin' 
eflect  of  enabling  the  British  govt'riiment  to  fiiUill  more  easily  than  heretofore  tlint 
particular  class  of  international  obligations  which  may  arise  out  of  the  conduct  of  Hti 
Majesty's  subjects  toward  belligerent  foreign  states  with  which  Her  ilajestj  is  at  peace. 
No'dou'bt  it  has.  Tins  (luotation  is  as  irrelevant  as  those  introduced  at  pt).  llH-l^i.in 
order  to  prove  that  the  law  of  n.-itions  has  been  regarded  as  forming  part  of  the  coin- 
iiion  law  of  England,  a  proposition  sometimes  stated  too  largely,  but  which,  coiiwtiy 
understood,  has  beeu  denied  by  uo  one,  and  lu  uo  way  assists  the  argument  of  tbe 
Uuited  States. 


COrXTER    CASE    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


213 


what  tlioy  onjoin  is  enjoined,  or  that  wlint  tliey  ])roliil>it  is  prohibited, 
bv  the  lii\\' t^f  "fi^'i'^'"^'  In  some  oisi's  this  niuy  bo  so;  (iommonly  it  is 
not  so.  iJiit  the  iu;ts  thiMnselves,  wlietlicr  tlit'y  li;ii)p(>n  to  eoinciih^  witli 
rules  of  iiiternationol  hiw  or  not,  are  vohiiitary  and  discretionary. 
Tlii'y  are  done  in  exereise  of  a  ri<ifht,  not  in  perlornianee  of  an  ohliga- 
tidii. 

Tiie  forefjoinj?  remarks  have  been  drawn  from  tlie  r»ritisli  ji-overninent 
by  the  attiMiipt  made  in  the  ('ase  of  the  United  States  tointrodnee  into 
tills  controversy  an  assnmption  which  is  eU'arly  orroneons:  the  assnmp- 
tioii,  namely,  tliat  whatever  is  or  was  prohibited  by  Jiritisli  law  or  by 
tlii'orchMS  or  proclamations  of  the  British  }>'ov«M-nm(uit  oM,<;ht,  a.v  against 
(Ireat  Britain,  to  be  held  to  be  prohibited  !)y  the  law  of  nations. 

Thus  it  is  asserted'  that  all  the  acts  prohibited  by  the  2d,  r)tli,  (Jth,  7th, 
and  8th  sections  of  the  foreign-enlistment  act  mnst  be  held,  as  against 
Great  Britain,  to  be  acts  which  a  nentral  goveinment  "ought,"  or  "\vas 
lioiind,"  not  to  permit  to  l)e  done  within  its  jnrisdiction,  and  were  viola- 
tions of  the  international  dnties  "of  a  neutral;"  that  the  foreignenlist 
iiienta(  tdeiinesand  recognizes  the  "princii>les  and  dnties''  "obligatory 
(111  the  nation  in  its  relations  with  other  powers;"  that  the  act  of  ISTO 
was '•  intended,  at  least  a.s  against  the  British  (/orfrnmrnt,  as  a  re  enact- 
ment of  the  law  of  nations;"  that  the  restrictions  placed  by  the  Jiritish 
novenmient  on  +he  stay  of  belligerent  vessels  in  its  ports  ai'c  to  be  re- 
;';inled  as  commanded  by  intcMiiational  law,  instead  of  being,  what  they 
really  were,  regnlations  issued  in  the  free  exercise  of  the  sovereign  rights 
of  a  neutral  power;  lastly,  that  the  supposed  rules  or  ])rincii)les  of 
international  law  thus  extracted  from  British  laws  and  ordinances  may 
;in(l  ought  to  be  ai)plied  by  the  tribuind  atjainHt  (treat  liritain,  without 
lieliig  recognized  by  it  as  api)licable  under  like  circumstances  against 
other  neutral  nations  in  general. 

Her  Britaiiuic  ]Majesty's  govcrnnuMit  declares,  on  the  contrary,  in  the 
most  explicit  nninner,  that  the  law  to  which  it  has  submitted  its  con- 
(liiet,  and  by  whi(di  it  has  <!onsented  to  be  tried,  is  the  international  law 
recognized  in  comi>u»n  by  all  civilized  states,  coujjled  with  the  three 
rules  embodied  in  the  treaty ;  that  this  law  is  to  be  gathen'd,  not  from 
Ihitlsli  statutes  or  ordinances,  but  from  the  general  consent  of  nations, 
evldoiieed  by  their  i»racti(!e  ;  and  that  the  laws  and  ordiinuices  of  Great 
Bt'itiiln  herself  can  be  apitealed  to  only  for  thesingh;  pui'pose  of  proving 
that  her  governnuuit  was  arn»ed  with  sunicient  power  to  discliarge  its 
international  dnties,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  extending,  any  more 
than  of  restricting,  the  range  of  those  duties. 


AUGU3IENT   OF   THE   UNITED   STATES. — ALLEGED   DUTY  OE   A   (SOVEUN* 
MENT   TO   ENFORCE   ITS   OWN  LAWS    VND   REdULATlONS. 


At  page  211.  of  its  Case,  the  fJovernmeut  of  the  Uuite<l  States  lays 
down, asagainstdreatBritaiu, the  general  proposition     v,,,,,,.,,  .i,,^.  „,  ,, 


Ki>v»'rtiiii''rit 


[10]     that  a  neutral  is  bound  toenforce  itslawsand  its*"ex-  ,„„,.  ,„  „„„,„„, 

ecutive  i)roclamation."  It  appears  to  conten«l  for  tin?  "»ir<^^8''i't'"»^- 
siinie  proposition  at  page  108.  But,  at  pages  122,  123,  it  expressly 
guards  itself  against  being  supposed  to  adndt  that  (Jreat  Britain, 
against  whom  this  supposed  principle  is  pressed,  would  herself,  if  the 
case  were  reversed,  be  entitled  to  the  advantage  of  it  against  the  United 
States  or  against  other  nations.  The  arbitrators,  therefore,  are  solicited 
to  assume  tliat  Great  liritain  was  bouiul  to  enforce  her  laws  and  ordi- 

1  Case  of  Uuited  States,  pp.  109,  110,  UB,  12.'),  210,  212. 


;l 


214 


TREATY    OF    WASHIXGTOX. 


Hm* 


■':  i 


;l: 


■II 


.1,  . 

r- 1 


IS' -I' 


u.TiK'es  so  far  as  ther  werr*  in  favor  of  tin*  United  .States,  with  tlic  im. 
ilcrstandln-;  that  the  <h-i,-ision  is  n«it  to  imply  that  any  forn'sjM.ndin.' 
ol)li«;atioii  was.  or  is.  ineiuiilRMit  ou  the  L'nite<l  States  or  on  other  puwtiv 
towanl  (ireat  I>ritain. 

Ill  (h't'iMiso  of  this  extraonlinary  snir^jestion  it  is  pleaih'd  tliat  -in 
ITO.'j,  duriiij;  (len«'ral  Washington's  administration,  tht-  rej»res«Mitati\> 
of  Great  Britain  in  the  United  .States  pointetl  out  to  Mr,  JettVr.son.  win, 
was  tlien  Secretary  of  Stat**,  aets  irh'u-h  trt-re  I'rime'l  by  IHx  Britunnir 
Majcstii''H  govfrnment  to  lt*r  'brmvlun  of  ntutndlty'  (h»ne  in  M-ontravi'iiiion 
of  the  PresiiU'nt's  prric-hiniation '  of  neutndity.  and  he  inviti'«l  the  T'iiit«-«i 
States  to  take  steps  for  the  ri-pn*ssion  of  su«-h  aets  an«l  for  the  n-stora 
tion  of  capture«l  prizes.~and  that  ••  it  apiM-arsthat  the  United  Statt'>«-oiii. 
l)lied  with  these  requests."  It  will  In- seen  that  the  representations  tlit-u 
made  on  the  part  of  this  eountry  to  tlie  Uiiite«l  States  were  foundtil ,  - 
the  character  of  the  aets  themselves,  which  were  deemed  by  the  I>iiti>ii 
jl'overnnient  to  Ik?  breaches  of  neiitrality.  and  not  u|mu  the  fact  tba: 
they  were  prohibiteil  by  the  I'resideni's  priK  lamation.  Further  cmn 
iiient  on  this  supposed  precetlent.  which  will  hereafter  be  examined  lo: 
a  ilifterent  purpose,  is  hen*  unnecessary. 

Tiie  international  duties  which  (ireat  Britain  acknowledjies  towai.J 
other  states  she  will  at  all  times  ln»ld  hei-self  entitled  to  enforce  a ;:;iiii^; 
tliem.  And  she  would  not  liaveexiM-i-ted  that,  umlerany  eircumstaiJct-<. 
tiie  United  States  could  have  taken  a  diflerent  view. 

l)isrej,'ardinj;  the  attempt  to  conline  the  oi»eration  of  it  to  a  sin^ltr 
power,  Her  Majesty's  government  cannot  admit  the  pro|Nisitioii  Auwhii-ii 
the  (i(»vernment  t»f  the  Unit*-*!  .Stati-s  contends.  Setting  aside  tln>s^ 
eases  in  winch  the  law  or  ordinance  s«-rves  only  as  a  means  of  enablin,' 
the  j^overiimeiit  to  diseharge  an  antecedent  international  oblijratioii.aii'i 
eases  in  wiiich  the  omission  to  enforce  it  would  Ix*  an  instance  t>f  willtnl 
partiality  or  a  violation  of  an  »'Xpress  or  tacit  enjragement.  it  cannot  W 
admitted  that  a  state  is  iMonnl  l»y  any  international  duty  towar<l  otli.-r 
states  to  exe<Mite  or  enforce  its  own  orilinancfS  or  laws  within  its  «»wa 
territory.  A  state  is  b<juii<I  to  enforce  the  laws  which  afford  protectinii 
to  life  and  property,  for  the  fM-netit  of  commorant  foreij.Miers  ;i>  u-.-ii  a> 
for  that  of  its  own  citizens :  lH-«-anse  it  is  a  principle  universally  re< 
opnized  that  foreign  residents  obeyi'ig  the  laws  aie  entitled  to  tl.t- 
prote<!tion  wliich  they  iK-stow.  Hei-e  tli^re  is  an  antece«lent  «Iuty.  iJut 
a  state  is  not  bound  to  enforce  revenue  laws  of  its  own.  from  which  an 
iiKMdental  advantage  nsay  be  reaiied  by  some  foreign  nation  ur  its  citi- 
zens; for  heie  there  is  no  antiH-e<lent  duty.  Still  less  eau  it  be  allowc*!. 
in  the  absence  of  any  antei-e<lent  obli«:ation.  that  in  exwuting  its  own 
laws  a  state  is  bound,  in  relation  to  other  states,  to  the  exercise-  of 
!»ctive  vigilance  and  exact  diligence,  or  that  it  owes  thein  conij»«M)sui<!U 
tor  any  loss  they  may  conceive  ilif-niselves  to  have  sustained  throii-b  a 
default  in  this  resiM.-ct.  The  comity  of  nations,  iudeeil.  i»erniits  rejtiv- 
sentations  and  remonstrances  to  l>e  uiadt-  tiy  one  government  to  aimtlitT 
in  eases  where  no  strict  right  exist-s.  Nor  is  Her  Majesty's  goveriinn'iit 
disposed  to  deny  that  cases  may  occur  in  which,  through  a  reasoiiaiiW 
contidence  that  the  laws  and  oidinances  of  a  particular  state  wouM  If 
executed  according  to  their  tenor,  l«isse.s  may  have  Ijeeii  ineurrol  I'v 
another  state  or  its  citizens  or  subje<'ts  for  which  some  reparation  uii^lii 
fairly  and  equitably  be  made.  But  the  claim  tor  com i>ens:i tion  in  sueli 
eases  arises  from  s|>eeial  eircum>tances,  and  apiieals  to  iuteruatioual 
comity  ar  «1  an  eulargeil  gense  of  equity,  not  to  strict  right.  Great 
Britain  i.  willing  to  go  as  far  as  any  state  ha.s  ever  gone  in  this  dinx- 
tioit.    The  British  governiueut  lias  uever  deuied,  ou  the  coutrary,  it  bas 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


21.'3 


at  all  times  freely  and  reailily  a«lmitte«l,  that  the  United  States  had 
iv;i<a>iial»le  grnuuKl  to  e.\|K*et  tliat  the  provisions  of  the  forei<j:n-enlist- 
Mit'iit  iK-t  would,  like  the  other  municipal  laws  of  (lieat  liritain,  l)e  fairly 
.xrtiitrd.even  where  they  niijjiht  exei'ed  the  ascertained  limits  of  the  law 
Mt  nations.  This  consideration,  and  the  wish  that  every  cause  of  coni- 
,.huiit  on  the  ]»art  of  the  United  States  should  be  completely  and  effect- 
liiily  rcMiovt^l.  together  with  the  desire  to  make  satisfactoiy  jn-ovisiou 
i..r  tbo  future,  induced  Her  Majesty's  government,  in  conclmlin.u:  the 
treaty  of  Washinjrton,  to  consent  that  a  retr«»spcctivc  effect  should  be 
jivi'ii  to  the  three  rules  inserted  in  the  Vlth  Article  of  that  treaty. 


KECAPITl'LATIOX. 


The  conduct  of  Great  Britain  in  this  matter  is  to  be  tried  by  the  three 

rules  of  the  treaty  of  Washinjrton,  coupled  with  such 
11]     {reneral  princii)les  of  international  law,  not  *incon-       ne  iptuiH,.,.. 

sistent  with  those  rules,  as  may  appear  to  have  been 
applicable  to  the  case.  The  j^fcneral  i)rinciple.s  of  international  law  are 
r.i  Ik- collected  from  those  sources  to  which  it  is  customary  to  have  re- 
•t>urse.  and  not  fnun  the  municii»al  law  of  Crre.it  IJritain,  nor  from  ad- 
ministrative acts  or  regulations  of  the  liiitish  government ;  aiul  these, 
are  to  he  ajiplied.as  aj;ainst  Great  Britain,  in  the  same  mann«'r  in  whicii 
thfV  would  be  applied,  under  like  circumstances,  a^^ainst  the  United 
States  or  any  other  sovereiy  ii  state. 

iKiiUMENT  OF  TilE  UNITED  STATES. — EXTENT  OF  NEt'TRAL  OIU.I- 
UATKtNS.  AS  DEDUCED  FROM  THE  THREE  RILES  AND  FROM  GEX- 
EUAL   PRINCIPLES   OF   INTERNATIONAL  LAW. 

Ilcr  Britannic  Majesty's  •rovernment  proceeds  to  remark  upon  that 
(■art  of  the  Case  t»f  the  United  States  in  which  the  Gov-  e„„„  .„  ,„.,.„,, 
rruuieut  of  the  United  States  has  explained  and  endeavored  ;i!;|',"J',rmn.hr.i,;';.i: 
•i  support  its  view  of  the  extent  of  the  iluties  of  a  neutral  '"li ;;,"'/..'.,'!, ""in: 

'l>l  VhT  tern  itifin.il  law. 

Tiif  British  fiovernment  deems  it  riy:ht  here  to  observe  that  the  ques- 
liiius  submitted  to  liie  tribunal  are  not  of  an  abstract  or  speculative 
iliaracter.  The  arbitrators  have  n»>t  to  consider  and  determine  wh'.it 
:nhi  might  with  advanta-jfe  be  laiil  dowu  for  the  re;;ulation  of  tlii»  con- 
Liut  of  neutral  powers  during  war;  what,  under  sucli  rules,  woultl  have 
••wu  the  duty  of  Great  Britain,  or  wliether  Great  Britain  acted  in  accord- 
ance with  that  standard  of  duty.  They  have  to  deal  with  facts.  Inju- 
ries are  alleged  to  have  been  inllicted  by  (rreat  Britain  and  sustained 
I'V  tile  United  States.  Iteparatiou  is  claiuied  for  tliose  iiijuries.  There 
cm  he  no  injury  without  stuue  violation  of  a  duty  actually  existing  at 
"lie  time.'  The  arbitrators,  before  they  decide  against  Great  Britain, 
must  be  satisfied  that  there  was  such  a  violation  of  duty.  They  must 
lie  satistietl,  therefore,  in  the  tirst  place,  that  the  alleged  duty  really 
existe«l.  They  must  be  satislied,  further,  that  the  violation,  if  any,  was 
siuh  that  reparation  may  justly  be  awarded  for  it  in  money — that  is, 
iliat  it  was  the  direct  cause  of  some  substantial  and  appreciable  loss  to 
tbe  party  claiming  reparation. 

Tbt-  general  iiefinition  of  "p«/;w^"o^"/rt(f^•"al>plil■s  to  iiiteriintioiuil  iiijmii's,  as  well 
i>to  injurii-a  inflicttnl  ami  siistaiued  by  individuals.  '"Le  dobiteiir  ost  en  fante  suit 
'ia"il  coutivvieut  a  Tobligation  de  iie  pa.s  I'aire,  soil  r^aaud  il  u'exociite  j»a.s  obligation 
•ir  Ciire.  soit  quand  ii  u'a  pas  apporte  dans  rexocution  on  dans  raecotuplis.senii-ut  de 
oette  ubligatiim  tons  les  soius  a(iX)|Ui-ls  il  «Stait  teuu." — Lc  Droit  civil  fran^ain,  par 
Zvkaritr,  ammote  par  G.  Mtune  tt  Ch.  Vtrgi,  nee.  54d. 


216 


TREATY    OF    WASHIXUTOX. 


■^^•• 


■:1  ' 


Tlio  nontral  diitios  wliicli  it  is  ullofjod  by  tlio  Uiiitod  States  thai 
<ln-nt  IJritain  fiiilcd  to  (lisrliar;;*'  aiv  of  two  classes,  which  sliould  Ih- 
kcjit  «listiiu-t  IVoiii  each  otiicr.     Tlicv  relate  to — 

(A.)  The  ori;;iiial  llttiiij;' out,  ariniii<,',  or  e(iiiii)i)in<j  in  neutral  pmN 
of  vcsst'ls  iiitev'^i'd  for  the  naval  service?  of  a  bellifjerent,  and  tlif 
ori;;iiial  departure  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  neutral  of  vessels  in 
tcnd«'d  for  such  service,  and  adapted  for  war  wholly  or  in  i»art  witliiii 
such  Jurisdietitiu. 

(I».)  The  athnission  into  the  ports  or  waters  of  a  neutral  of  vessels  in 
the  naval  service  of  a  Itelli^erent,  whether  such  vessels  were  or  were 
not  orijiinally  aelajtted  for  war  within  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  neutral. 
and  acts  done  l>y  or  in  n'spect  of  vessels  so  aihnitted. 

The  qiu'stion  what  nu'asure  of  diligeiu;e  or  care  may  Justly  he  di' 
niandi'd  of  a  neutral  j-'ovcrnment  in  the  prevention  of  acts  on  ilie  ]»iiit 
of  its  suUJi'cts  or  citizens  which  ari^  inconsistent  with  neutrality,  iunl 
the  «iuestion  in  what  ca><es  and  on  what  accounts  re])aration  nniy  Justly 
be  awarded,  are  aj^ain  distinct  from  the  foregoing,  and  have  to  be  con 
sidercd  separately. 


(A.)   ORIGINAL   EQUirMENT,   ETC.,   OF   UELLIGEKENT  VESSELS   LN  NKl- 

*  TKAL   I'OllTS. 


i 

( 


il 

J'  S      , 

hi' 

i    : 


A.s  to  neutral  duties   falling    under  the  first  of  these  heads,  IIh 
A.' Or.. .0.1   Ibitaiinic  ^lajesty's  goveriunent   adlieies  to  what  is  laiil 
'l-JT^iuiIrw!-  down  in  the  tliree  rules  embodied  in  the  sixth  article  of  tlr 
-■^'■- -'■  treaty,  and  more  particularly  in  the  tirst  of  those  riili's. 

The  IJritish  gt)vernment  is  well  convinced  that  these  rules  go  heyomi 
any  detinition  of  neutral  duty,  which,  up  to  that  tinu»,  had  been  estali- 
lished  by  the  law  (»r  general  practi(;e  of  nations;  but  it  refrains  rioiii 
arguing  that  question,  holding  that  the  <liscussion  of  it  is  preclndnl. 
exrei»t  so  far  as  amy  be  necessary  for  the  purjiose  of  dealing  with  arun 
inents  founih'd  on  an  assumed  state  of  international  law,  as  distinct 
from  an  umleitaking  by  Her  3rajest\"  to  act  u[>on  the  rules.  ]iy  cominon 
consent  the  lules  are,  for  the  i)uri)oses  of  this  arbitration,  to  l»i- 
[12]  *taken  as  applicable  to  the  case ;  it  is  to  be  assuaied,  witlimit 
disi»ute  on  either  side,  for  the  purposu  of  this  arbitration,  tliat 
the  obligations  whi(di  they  purport  to  express  were  such  as  (iieat 
Britain  had  undertalvcn  to  perform. 

Since,  however,  the  (rovei'nment  of  the  United  Slates  has  thoajjlit 
proper  to  enter  into  the  question  at  sonu^  length.  Her  Majesty's  govern 
nient  deems  it  not  inqiroper  to  repeat  here  a  statement  already  nnule  iu 
its  case  luvsented  to  the  tribunal. 

'*Tht*  case,"  it  was  there  said,  ''of  a  vessel  which  is  dispatched  from 
a  neutral  port  to  or  for  the  use  of  a  belligerent,  after  having  been  pre- 
|>ared  within  the  lUMitral  territory  for  warlike  use,  is  one  which  may  bo 
regarded  from  ditierent  points  of  view  and  nniy  fall  within  the  opora- 
tion  of  dirterent  principles.  The  ship  herself  may  be  regarded  merely 
as  an  implement  or  engine  of  war,  sold  or  nmnufaetured  to  order  within 
neutral  territory,  and  afterward  transported  therefrom,  and  the  whok 
trausjR'tion  as  falling  within  tiie  scope  of  the  principles  applicable  to 
the  sale,  manufacture,  shipment,  and  transportation  of  articles  contra 
baud  of  war ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  the  preparation  and  dispatch  ot 
the  ship  may  be  viewed  as  being  really  and  in  eftect  the  preparation 
and  coninieneement  of  a  hostile  expedition.  The  circumstances  of  eaib 
case  can  alone  determine  from  which  of  these  two  points  of  view  it  may 
most  fitly  be  regarded,  and  to  which,  class  the  transaction  ought  to  he 


COrXTER    CASE    OF    GREAT    IJRITAIV. 


217 


i'  ' 


psfifTned.  But  the  diniculty  of  niawinji:  a  clear,  i)ieeise.  ami  intellij;il>!«* 
line  iH'twcen  these  twt)  classes  of  transaetions  has  always  been  e<nisi<l- 
tiaWf  ill  theory  and  still  <;reat('i'  in  practict';  and  it  was  enhanced  to 
tin'  utmost  during  the  civil  war  hy  the  in^ennity  and  audacity  of 
Aiiurican  citizens,  who  were  en<;a};ed  in  carryin^jf  on  hostilitit-s  ay:ainst 
tin-  (iovcrnnient  of  the  United  States,  aJid  were  desirous  of  availinj^ 
iliiiiisflves  for  this  i)uri»os('  of  the  ship  bnihliny;  and  manufacturing;  re- 
M 111! cos  of  (Ireat  Britain.  This  will  sulliciently  appear  from  the  narra- 
tive wliicli  tbllows;  and  it  will  be  seen  also  how  serious  ami  incessant 
were  the  trouble  and  embarrassment  which  these  enterprises  occasioned 
Id  Her  ^lajesty's  jjjovernment.  It  is  by  the  many  dilliculties  ciicoun- 
iiied  and  by  the  experience  ac(piired  during'  the  war  that  Her  Majesiy's 
,'iivermnent  was  tinally  led  to  the  conclusion  timt  it  was  expedient,  not 
oiiiy  to  enlarg:e  the  scope  of  its  municipal  law  in  relation  to  this  subject 
Iteyond  what  has  hitherto  been  <leemed  necessary  in  any  other  country, 
■•lit,  further,  to  accept  for  itself,  and  propose  to  other  powers,  rules  of 
iiiteruational  oblijjation  somewhat  more  strinjjfent  and  compreluMisive 
tliiin  are  to  be  fouml  in  earlier  exp<)sitions  of  the  law  of  nations.'^ 

Tile  British  government  believes  that  the  arbitrators  would  seaich  in 
Viiiii  la  text  bo«»ks  of  acknowlcd<>e<l  authority  anterior  to  tlu*  civil  war, 
;iii(l  ill  the  jjeneial  i)ractice  of  maritime  nations,  for  any  i>roof  or  ac- 
kii(iwleil;,'ment  of  a  duty  incumbent  on  neutral  jL;overninents  to  i»revent 
ilieir  citizens  or  subjects  from  supplyiufi  belli^-erents  with  ships  adapted 
tor  warlike  use.  They  would  tiiid  it,  indeed,  asserted,  on  the  (Uiehand, 
that  ainoii^  the  duties  of  a  neutral  <;(>vernment  is  that  of  preventin;jf 
hostile  exi»e«litions  in  aid  of  either  belli^ierent  from  bein.y:  or<;anize(l 
witiiia  ami  dispatche«l  fnun  its  territory.  They  would  not,  on  the  other 
!i;iii(l.  timl  the  sale  ov  delivery  to  a  belligerent  by  a  citizen  or  subject  of 
the  neutral  of  a  vessel  adapted  for  war  classed  amonjj  the  acts  which 
the  neutral  fiovernment  is  bound  to  prevent,  nor  would  they  lind  any 
ilistinetion  drawn  in  this  respect  between  the  sale  and  diOivery  of  u 
Vessel  l>uilt  to  order  and  that  of  a  vessel  not  built  to  order,' 

It  is  true  beyond  controversy  that,  at  the  time  when  the  events  oc- 
iiured  out  of  which  the  claims  of  the  United  States  have  arisen,  the 
mere  sale  and  delivery  of  a  vessel  adapted  for  war  in  a  neutral  port  to 
a  lielli^Xerent,  and  the  mere  construction  of  such  a  vessel  to  liie  order 
and  for  the  use  of  a  belli<;erent,  had  not  been  <leclared  by  any  authority 
to  he  acts  which  the  neutral  jiovernment  was  under  an  obliiiation  to 
lirevent.  or  which  violated  any  neutral  duty.  And  it  must  never  be 
li'ijrotteii  that  the  obligations  of  international  law  are  such  as  have 
k-eu  received  and  acknowled};ed  by  the  "cneral  consent  of  ni\tions,  No 
I'livate  oi)inions  or  theoretical  developments  of  the  principles  on  which 
iheyare  supposed  to  rest  can  ever  constitute  new  internatioiial  obli';a- 
tionsor  enlarjj;e  the  old  till  they  have  been  themselves  generally  ac- 
knowledged and  received.  It  would  seem,  indeed,  to  be  inconsistent 
"itb  neutrality  for  a  neutral  power  to  introduce  or  admit,  during  war, 
iuiiovations  on  these  subjects  to  the  ijrejudice  of  either  belligerent. 

It  is  true,  also,  that  it  was  a  question  at  the  least  of  reasonable  and 
M'rioHs  doubt,  whether  either  of  these  classes  of  acts  was  a  contraven- 
tion of  the  municipal  law  of  England  or  would  have  been  a  contraven- 
tion of  that  of  the  United  States.  Simple  justice  demands  that  this 
should  be  steadily  kept  in  view  in  determining  whether,  iu  any 
[13]     of  the  eases  brought  *before  the  arbitrators,  there  was,  on  the 

'  Some  citations  bearing  on  this  question  aic  collected  iu  an  annex  (A)  at  the  end  of 
this  counter  case. 


218 


TKKATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


I4i»* 


m^ 


l>int  of  the  T^ritisli  {jovornmont  or  any  of  its  subordinato  ofTifors, 
KiU'Ii  a  <k'f«'<'t  of  ])roin|>titiul('  or  decision  as  to  amount  to  culpaldc  ii(.;r! 
li/icnce.  It  is  material  to  he!  borne  in  mind,  in  wMisiderinfj  wliat  I'acFs 
were  l^nown  to  the  fjovernment,  what  those  facets  proved  or  lUd  imt 
l)i'ove,  and  what,  npon  tlie  faets  whieli  were  known  to  it,  and  on  which 
alone  it  eoidd  act,  it  was  the  dnty  of  the  {jovernment  to  do. 

It  haslteen  already  stated  to  the  arbitrators,  in  the  case  presented  to 
them  on  the  part  of  (Sreat  Hritain,  that,  in  the  Jiidfjment  of  Her  Miijts- 
ty's  p[«»vernment  and  its  official  advisers,  the  special  adaptation  of  a  ves- 
sel to  warlike  use  was  amonjjf  the  acts  prohibited  by  the  forei;;jn  ciilist. 
meat  act,  provided  there  were  sntlicMcnt  proof  that  she  was  intended  tor 
the  service  of  a  bellifj;erent,  althou^jh  the  vessel  mijj:ht  not  be  actually 
armed  s(»  as  to  be  capable  of  inunecliate  employment  for  war.  Tiie  jtro- 
visions  of  the  acts  are  not,  as  has  been  alrea«ly  observed,  to  bere^'ardod 
as  declaratory  of  the  law  of  nations.  IJat  Her  Majesty's  jLfo  vein  input 
agrees  that  by  the  second  clause  of  the  lirst  rule  it  was  tlie  intention 
of  the  hijih  contracting  parties  to  preclude  any  question  on  this  point 
from  beiny;  raised  before  the  arbitrators,  with  reference  to  the  words 
"fitting  out,  arming,  or  equipping"  in  the  first  clause. 

(Jreat  IJritain  does  not,  on  this  or  any  other  point,  desire  to  raise 
or  <lispute  before  the  arbitrators  any  doubtful  or  obscure  questions  of 
public  law.  She  desires,  on  the  contrary,  that  they  should  be  relieved,  as 
far  as  possible,  fVom  the  necessity  of  consi<lering  such  <pu'stioiis,  ami 
she  expects  from  them  a  fair  and  just  decision  on  ascertained  tacts, 
tried  by  the  application  of  admitted  i)rin<iples,  or  of  plain  and  legitiniato 
inferences  from  admitte«l  i»rinciples.  She  accepts  as  applicable  to  tlm 
case,  and  as  substantially  sutllcient  for  an  equitable  adjudi<Mtion  on  it, 
the  proposition  that  a  neutral  government,  which  has  assented  to  the 
rules  lai<l  down  in  the  sixth  article  of  the  treaty,  is  bouml — 

Firsf.  To  iisr  due  dilij^ciK't'  to  prevent  tlu'  tittin<j  out,  anniiij;,  or  eqiiii)i>inK.  witliin 
its  jiirisdictitiii,  of  any  vessel  wliieli  it  lias  i'eaHoiial)le  f^romids  to  lieliove  is  intciKlcil 
to  eniise  or  to  cany  on  war  aj^aiiist  a  jxtuer  with  whieli  it  is  at  peace;  and  also  to  use 
like  dili;;eiiee  to  jireveMt  tlie  dei)artiire  from  its  jurisdiction  of  any  vesstd  intcnili'il  tu 
cruise  or  carry  on  war  as  al>ove,  such  vessel  having  beeu  specially  adapted,  in  wlmh' 
«»r  in  i>ait,  witiiin  such  Jurisdiction,  to  warlike  use. 

Secondly.  Not  to  permit  or  sutler  either  Itelli^erent  to  make  uso  of  its  ports  or 
■waters  as  tlie  base  of  n:ival  opcjrations  aj^ainst  the  other,  or  for  the  purpose  of  tlii; 
renewal  or  aii<fiiientation  of  military  sui»plies  or  arms,  or  the  recruitiuent  of  men. 

Thirdly.  To  i-xercise  due  diligence  in  its  own  ports  or  waters,  and,  a.s  to  all  porsniis 
vitiiin  its  jurisilietion,  to  prevent  any  violation  of  the  foregoing  obligations  ami 
duties. 

She  ac(!epts  these  rides,  not  with  the  retinements  of  meaning  and  tlio 
overstrained  rigor  of  construction  which  are  applied  to  them  in  the  Case 
of  the  United  States,  but  according  to  their  obvious  purport,  and  as 
they  would  luitiually  be  understood  by  persons  conversant  with  the 
law  and  i)ractice  of  nations;  and  she  maintains  that  the  British  gov- 
ernment «lid  not  at  any  time  during  the  war,  in  respect  of  any  of  the 
vessels  to  which  the  clain.s  of  the  United  States  relate,  or  of  any  other 
vessels,  fail  to  use  the  due  diligence  which  the  rules  require. 


;' 


(B.)   ADMISSION  OF   BELLIGERENT   VESSELS   INTO   NEUTRAL  PORTS. 

With  respect  to  the  admission  of  belligerent  ships  of  war  into  neutral 
ports,  the  principles  of  the  law  of  nations  are  clearly  set- 
tled, not  only  by  the  general  consent  of  publicists,  hut  by 
a  long  and  nearly  unitbrm  practice. 

It  is  the  right  of  a  neutral  government,  at  its  absobite  discretion, 
either  to  refuse  admission  or  to  grant  it,  and  extend  to  the  vessels 


bi'lliferi'ut       V.--X-I 
into  neutral  purt-«. 


COUNTER    CASE    OF   GREAT    MRITAIX. 


219 


so  ailinitti'tl  1  .<t^  onliiiijry  liospitiilitics  of  a  fricinlly  ]unt,  on  such 
iMiiiditioiis,  iiiid  siiWjcrt  to  such  i-c;;iiliitioMs,  it'  any,  as  the  ni'Utral  anv- 
iiniin'iit  may  tliink  tit  to  make;  prox  idrd  only  tliat  tlic  sanir  t'acilitics 
1h' otl't'U'*!  to  botli  lu'llij^i'iTnts  inditlt'iciitly,  and  that  such  vessels  Imi 
iiiit  pciiiiitted  to  anjfnient  their  ndlitary  foice,  or  increase^  or  renew 
their  siippiii's  of  arms  or  ninnitions  of  war,  witliin  the  neutral  teri-itory. 
A  iii'iitral  j;()V4nnment  is  not  re(|uired  by  the  law  or  piactict^  of 
]i;iti(»iis  to  place  any  restrictions  whatev«'r  upon  the  liberty  whi(;h  it 
iiiconlH  of  pun^hasiufif  provisions,  coal,  and  other  supplies,  (not  heiii;;" 
>ii|)|ilie.s  of  arms  or  munitions  of  wai.)  It  is  not  a  principle  or  rule  of 
tliclinvof  nations  that  the  supplies  ]>nrchase(l  should  be  limited  to  tlie 
i|ii;iiitity  necessary  for  enablinj:;'  the  vessel  to  j^ain  the  nean-st  port  of 
lifi' own  country  or  of  an  ally.  No  such  principle  was  ever,  so  far  as 
lltr  Majesty's  government  is  aware,  admitteil  or  eontendecl  for  by  any 

maritime   power.     On    the   contrary,  it    has   been    tlu^  constant 
lt|     practice  •to  allow  belli;;erent  vessels  to  re[)air,  relit,  and  suj)ply 

themselves  with  stores  and  fuel,  with  the  avowed  intention  of 
ciiiitinnin;''  to  cruise.  So  also  belli;i:erent  ships  may  be  eithcj-  permitted 
iir forlndden,  at  the  pleasure  of  tln^  neutral,  to  brinj;-  in  prizes,  to  retain 
]iiiss('ssioii  t)f  them,  or  even  to  sell  them,  althoujih  there  can  be  no  cou- 
ilciiiiiution  of  them  as  prize  by  any  antlnuity  locally  situat<>  within  the 
iiciitriil  territory.  Special  restrictions  may  undoubte<lly  be  imposed  by 
the  iii'iitral  government  if  it  thiidv  lit,  but  they  nuiy  be  revoked  at  any 
tiiiii',  and  do  not  confer  any  ri<;ht  on  either  bellij;ereiit.  Ail  that  a  bel- 
li;:i'it'iit  has  a  ri}«ht  todemaml  is.  that  restrictions  imposed  on  him  shall 
lie  imposed  on  his  enemy  likewise.' 


'Tliivsti  iHoiiosilions  aro  ho  familiiir  that  they  do  not  nval  to  bo  aiippinted  hy  tlio 

•itidii  of  iiiithoritics.  Tht^  siiltjoincd  fxhacts  IVoiii  moiiio  of  the  most  rocout  writers 
lie  may,  howc^ver,  8eive  to  illustrate  tliein  : 
s  i(';;lcs  relatives  a  I'aci  i-s  ct  an  sejntir  ini)iiioiitaiie  dcs  liatinieiits  dans  les  ports 
...  les  radi's  elran;jers  restent  les  "iieiiifs  en  temps  <1('  |>ai.\  qii'eii  teiiiiis  de  j^iicrre. 
>,iiilli's  liniitations  eoiiscnties  i>ar  traite,  les  ports,  les  rades,  ct  les  iiiers  territoriales 
iniitrcs  sdiit  nil  asile  oiivertaiix  l)atiiiMMits  de  j;iicrre  ties  l)('lli;;eraiits,  siirtoiit  lorsiprils 
>v  ;in''S('nleiit  (mi  nond)re  liniite;  ils  y  soiit  adiiiis  a  s'y  ])roeiirer  les  vivres  nect^ssaires 
it  ii  v  t'liire  les  reuaratioiis  indis]ieMsa1>l<'s  pour  r<pv<i)(lrc  Iti  mcvdxc  lirrcr  dr  vinirtvii 
ma  iiiii'mtioiiti  dc  <jnvrtT,  sans  ipie  I't'tat  nentn-  \iide,  par  la  les  devoirs  de  la  nentralitd 
ciiiiiiur  11  les  vioicrait,  an  eontraire,  s'il  aeeordait  nil  Iraiteiiient  seinldalde  a  des  tron- 
]iis(l(;  teiif  hellijferantes  (pii  vieiidraient  eliereher  nii  rel'n;;e,  siir  son  tei'ritoiris  en 
]i:iii'il  cas  ct'llesM'i  doivtuit  etre  desarnu'^es  et  t'-loiijiiei'S  dn  tln'-atre  de  la  <;nerie.  t'ette 
ililtt'ifiice  de  traitenii-nt  est  attrihnee,  eoniinnnenient,  par  les  pnldicistes,  ainsi  (pio 
IViKiiii'd  encore  nn  antcMir  allemand  nioderne,  anx  eonst'qiu^Tiees  de  rininintiite  dn 
liiivilldii  et  an  ])riiieiple  <|ne  les  navires  de  j^iierre  soiit  nne  portion  dn  tcMritoin;  de  la 
iiMiiiiii  a  laipielle  ils  appartiennent.  \ons  aiinons  niienx  en  eliereher  les  veritaliles 
iniiiirs  (liiiis  les  eondit ions  si  ditlei'eiites  <h'  rexisteiiee  maritime  et'dans  les  iiecessitos 
iiiilis|)eii>iililes  de  la  navi<ration  et  (h-  la  vie  ties  lioniiiies  siir  nn  (MtMnent  anssi  terrildei 
li;iiti)is  ([lie  la  nier." — (h-tolati  :  Jiiylcs  iiiti'nitilioiialix  rl  d'qilomnl'w  de  hi  mcr,  (4th  edition, 
vdl.  ii,  [I.  "JHI).) 

".SiPtis  la  reserve  tie  ces  di verses  eirconstanees,  I'asile  ipie  It^s  navires  et  les  corsaires 
ri'|,'iiliers  ties  pnissanees  bellij^erantes  sont  adinis  a  recevoirilans  les  portes  nentres  s'ap- 
liliiliic  aiissi  aeenxtU^  ees  navires  qui  arrivent  avet;  ties  [irises.  Uii  t'^tat  nentre  n'ayant 
I'.is  ]('  tlitiit  lie  s'in};f'ier  dans  les  resnltats  ties  aet<  s  exeret's  par  nn  l)(lli<;t'rant  en  etni- 
liHinit^  (le  lois  tie  la  •jnerrti,  tin  moment  tpu;  Its  eaptenr  a  hiss6  It;  pavilion  tit;  I't'tat 
i»ni|ui,'l  il  appartieiit  i\  bord  do  la  prise  tpi'il  a  laite,  eetto  jniso  dtiit  t^tro  consiiltSnSe, 
]iiiivisi)ireiiient  tin  mtdns,  coninio  prt>prielt' tlo  eet  otat  on  ilessnjcts;  et  a  co  titro  on 
ist  foiitlt^  a  reclanier  pour  file  I'liospitaliti^  dans  les  ports  amis. 

"C'eiientlant  il  no  taut  pas  perdre  tie  vn»;  tpio  chatine  dtat,  ayant  la  propritite  et  la 
liiilke  tie  ses  pt)rts,  est  libre,  en  prineijie,  d'en  onvrir  ct  d'en  fermer  I'entrt'^e,  solon 
iin'ille  jiijjt;  ctmvenablo  aux  interets  on  a  la  trantpdllite  tin  pays,  et  tine  les  ludlifjorants 
III'  peiiveiit,  i)ar  consi^tiuent,  on  reclamer  I'entn'^e,  ptnir  lenrs  navires,  ni  ponr  lt:s  prises 
i|ii'ilsttiit  lait<!s,  ettmme  uii  droit  <iui  lenr  appartiendrait." — Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  'M',i. 

"Loihoit  d'asilo  muritiniu  tlift'ere  essentiellement  de  colni  que  les  nentres  ])euvent 
cxercer  eu  faveui-  des  bellig^ruuts  sur  le  territoire  coutiuoutal.    Duus  les  jjuerres  ter- 


i  \ 


1 


IH 


220  TREATY   OF    WASHINGTON. 

[16]       *FIR.ST   LIMITATION   SUG(iESTED  BV   THE  UNITED  STATES. 

It  lias  been  necessary  for  ITer  Britannic  ^NFajest.v's  jjoveninioMt  tn 
recall  the  attention  of  the  tribunal  to  these  well-known  and  eleiiicntiiiv 
maxims,  because  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has  not  (niK 
endeavoreil  to  fix  upon  the  regulations  and  instructions  wlii'h  tlio 
Eritisli  jioveinment  deemeii  it  expedient  to  issue  durinjn'  the  war  to  its 
own  ollicers,  a  char;ictez'  which  they  did  not  possess,  that  of  ackuowlcdg. 

rcstirs  lni>(|irniH'  aiiiu'c,  fiiviint  dcviuit  .son  oimciiii,  vient  hp  rcfiifiicr  snr  tin  tiTiitciii,. 
iiontrc  clU-  y  <'st  rcvui',  il  est  vnii ;  <'11<^  y  tronvc  tons  Ics  seconr.s  (I'liuniaiiiti'.  Mais 
I'annoo  est  dissoiitc,  Ifs  liomiiies  (|ui  lii  coiiiitosiMit  sont  tlosarinos  (!t  oloiyiit's  dii  tliiViirc 
r.o  la  };mrio ;  mi  un  mot,  on  n'niplit  ks  dovoir.s  (I'lnunanitt!  a  ri'naid  di's  iiidividn., 
mai.s  on  n'ac.'rordi!  pas  I'a.sili'  a  I'arnii'o  inis  comnit'  c()rj)».  Lo  ncntrt'  (|iii,  an  lien  d'ii;;;r 
ainsi  cpu'  Jc  vicns  dt-  h'  dire,  accni'illcrait  It's  tronpt-s  oi  ncinics,  Itsnr  founiiiuit  dis 
vivics,  Icnr  donnt-rait  lo  temps  <!('  so  roniettro  do  loins  tatif^iu's,  dts  soijjnor  Icins  mala- 
dos  ot  Icnrs  Idossos,  ot  h'lir  pormottrait  eiisnito  do  retoni'icr  snr  lo  tlioatro  dcs  o|hm,i. 
t  itius  niilitaiics,  no  ss-iait  ]>as  tonsidt'io  conniio.  ncntro ;  il  niaiH|norait  ii  tons  Ics  (Icvtiin 
do  son  I'tat.  I/asilo  inaiitiino.  an  coiitraiit',  consisto  a  roccvoir  dans  los  radrs  tVinii'is, 
nioim^  dans  los  i>oi'(s.  Ics  batiniciits  dcs  bollif;orants ;  quo  Iciir  ontroo  soit  voloiitain'oii 
in^L.'ssitt'o  par  la  toinpoto,  )tar  lo  nian(|iio  do  vivros  ou  jtar  tonto  aiitro  caiiso,  inrineiiar 
la  ponrsnito  do  I'oniionii.  Los  vaisscaux  adinisiioiivoiit  aoh^itor  les  vivros  (|iii  Iciirsiint 
iiOfossains,  rcpaior  los  avaiios  laitcs,  soit  par  los  aecidonts  do  nior,  soit  i)ai'  Ic  (.•oiiilwi, 
soifiiior  li'iii's  iiialades  on  lours  blossos,  piiiH  xortir  Ubremnit  pour  dllcr  Uvrtr  tk  inmrKutr 
(■omlHit.s.  lis  no  sont  pas,  pur  conso([iient,  souniis  an  ddsuriueiuent,  couinie  les  tioii|it< 
de  toiTo. 

"(ialiiiiii  et  Aznni  attrilment  eetto  ditil'orenco  h  celle  <pii  existe  ontre  la  torre  ct  la 
nior,  ontro  los  dan;;crs  <|ni  nionaeont  lo  niarin  ot  coiix  aiixtjinls  est  exposo  1(!  sdlilat. 
Co  doniicr  no  jioiit  craindre  <|no  la  doiaito  ot  d'etre  jiris  jiar  son  ennonii,  taiidis  (|iic  L' 
premier  jiciit  sdiiveiit  etre  exjiose  a  iieiir  snr  les  mors  ]iar  la  t'amint>,  a  etro  eiij;l(iii;i 
sons  les  Hots,  iVe.  Cot  to  oanso  do  dirtereneo  pent  etro  viaie,  mais  elle  no  snilit  pas  imiir 
motiver  cello  (|iii  existe.  lOn  etlet,  si  olio  otait  nni<ine,  I'Uo  no  jnstitiorait  iiiiliciiiiiit 
I'abseiieo  do  d(''sariiienieiit,  snrtont  lorsi|ii'Mn  batiineiit  vieiit  st?  .ji.'ti'r  dans  lo  jiort  iifiitic 
ixnir  eebajiiper  a  In  ]Miiirsnite  <le  rennemi,  loixpril  vieiity  elierelier  nn  ret"nj;e  inniiv 
nne  (b'taite.  eoiitre  dii"  jirise  int^vital>le.  II  est  vrai  ipie  (ialiani  propose  do  senmi'ttiv 
les  vaisseanx  ipii  imititent  do  I'asile  an  dosarineiiu'nt.  Mail  il  recoiinait  i\v.>'  ciiti' 
re;rl(.  n'est  pas  adiiiise  par  les  nations,  (|n'elle  est  ('(Miipletenient  nonvelle,  et  tiucleiniit 
nonibre  d"exeinides.  (pn  Ton  iionrrait  eiter,  do  batinu'iits  eontraints  a  tlesanncr  \»w 
lioiivoir  etre  atlniis  a  .jmiir  do  Tasib^  dn  ]i(iit  nentre,  s'appliipie  a  des  arinateurs  dont  l;i 
condnite  senle  motivait  ci-tte  existence  extraordinaire. 

"  A/niii  va  beaneonp  iiliis  loin  :  il  vent  (pie  tonto  batinient  <pii  entre  djii.s  ini  \wn 
iientro,  jioiir  so  sonstiaire  a  la  ))onrsnite  dt!  rennenii,  soit  teiiii  non-seiilenient  de  di'sir- 
nier  imiiK'diatement,  s'il  est  arint^  en  giierri',  mais  encore  do  m;  plus  naviiriier  pi'iidiiit 
tout  le  teiiips  do  la  jinerre.  Et,  d'ajiies  la  nianiere  absolno  dont  il  sVxprinie,  il  i^t 
ovitlont  (pi'il  ai>]diipie  cetto  rej^lo  nieiiie  aiix  naviros  dn  coininerce. 

"  II  y  a  done  a  cetto  ditlerenco  immense  nno  jintro  oansi^  qn'il  est  utile  do  rccherclii:. 
Je  trois  (pi'elle  est  tout  eiitiere  dans  la  (pialilii  reconnii  dn  batinient.  II  est  iiiic  \<m- 
tie  dn  territoiro  do  son  jiays ;  jionr  tont  ce  ipii  concerni!  son  gonvernenient  interiinr.il 
est  j'xelnsi\enient  place  sons  la  jnridietioii  do  son  sonverain.  Or,  il  est  ('^videiH  <|M'"r- 
donner  le  dt'sarnienient,  e'est  s'inuniseer  dans  lo  <jonverm!nient  interionr  dii  v;ii>si:iii, 
(•'est  faire  nn  acte  do  jnridiction  snr  lo  vaisseau  ;  lo  jirinoe  nentre  n'a  pas  lo  druit  iK-li' 
fai'e.  II  jient  rernser  I'as'le  ;  il  jient  I'accorder  senleinent  sons  eertaines  ci>ii<litiiins, 
avee  des  restrictions.  S'il  vtuit  reniplir  los  devoirs  d'linmanitd,  arraelior  le  batinuiii 
anx  jierils  (pii  peiivent  le  menacer,  il  le  revolt  dans  ses  jiorts,  il  liii  aeeorde  les  srcmir- 
necessaires  jioiir  le  niettre  en  ('tat  do  ri'prendre  la  nier.  Tel  est.ji  nion  .avis,  le  s.i'1 
motif  <le  la  ditbM-ence  dont  je  vieiis  de  parlor." — Jlautc/eiiiHv :  Jhoila  it  devoir)!  drf  'w- 
tions  iitiilrtx,  vol.  i,  ]).  1547. 

"Taniliieii  es  ctistiimbre  perniilir  en  olios  (pnertos  nentrales)  a  los  biupu's  arni'ii!"* 
pnblitds  y  iiarticnlarcs,  pidveerse  <lo  viverea  y  otros  arti'cnlos  inocentes.  Ks  licitii  a 
los  beliirerantes  llevar  sns  jiresas  a  pnerto  neutral  y  vonderlas  en  <^1,  si  no  se  lo  iirnlii''' 
«'l  soberano  del  territorio.  a  (inioh  es  libro  ooncedor  esto  ]ierini.so  o  reiinrsnile,  nlisir- 
vando  con  aiubos  beligerantos  una  couducta  igiiul." — Vamlo:  ElemmioH  dd  dm^^" 
iiitenuicioiial,  ^S  VJ2. 

Even  the  jn-oliibition  of  tlie  pnrcliaso  of  arms  and  mnnitions  of  war  by  a  belliKiri'iit 
vessel  in  a  neutral  jiort  lias  been  qnestiom'd  by  Heffter.  "  Es  wiire  indesseii  liart."  1h' 
says,  "  eiiien  Kriejrer  wehrlos  seinen  F»'indeii  Preis  zii  k<''""'i  ""<'!'  'f**  Verkmitt' ii" 
eijjonen  Lande  den  Nontraleii  iiberhaiipt)  uioht  verboten." — Daa  tinopiiiitclie  f'ulknrtdl 
p.  Iht,  note  Ii,  (Gth  edition.) 


COUNTER   CASE    OF   GREAT    BRITAIN. 


221 


iiiciifsor  I'oi'ojjnitiotis  of  rules  olilifjatory  under  the  law  of  luitious;  it 
li;is  fiutlier  insisted  upon  a  eonstruction  of  the  words  of  tlie  second 
iiiK',  wliieh  no  neutral  nation  could  safely  accept,  and  wliich  was  not 
ji,  tlio  contemplation  of  Great  liritain  at  the  tiuio  when  they  were 
aiTCC'd  to. 

Tlie  novel  limitations  which  it  is  attempted  thus  to  intnxluce  are  in 
the  folio  wing  passage,  mingled  with  limitations  which  at  present  exist 
iiud  arc  recognized  by  established  usage: 

XIic  p'lifs  or  waft'vs  of  tlii^  Di-utiMl  arc  not  to  bo  iiimlo  tlie  base  of  iiavr.l  ojicrationH 
liViibi'llij^'iTciit.  VcHSfls  of  war  may  come  and  j;o  under  Hueh  rules  and  le-^iilations 
iistiu'  neutral  may  iircseiilx- ;  food  and  flicMndinary  stores  and  supplies  of  a  sjiip  not  of  a 
\vailil<e  eliaraeter  nniy  he  furnislied  without  ipiestion.  in  ((uantilies  ne  'f-isary  forjimiK.. 
liiati!  wants;  tlie  moderate,  liospitalitio.s  which  do  not  infrinj^e  upon  impartiality  may  l»e 
ixuiided ;  I>nt  no  act  shall  he  «lone  to  make  tin;  neutral  port  a  base  of  naval  oiiera- 
lidiis  Animunition  and  military  stores  for  cruisers  cannot  he  ohtained  there;  coal 
i;iiiiiiit  he  stored  there  for  successive  snpi>lies  to  the  same  vessel,  nor  can  it  he  furnished 
i,r(iUt:iined  in  such  supplies.  Prizes  cannot  he  hron<;ht  there  for  condemnation.  Vlie 
iipiiirs  tliaf  humanity  demand  can  he  ^iven,but  no  repairs  slioidd  add  to  tiu^  strenjjtli 
m  cllicieiiey  <d'  a  vessid,  beyond  what  is  ahsolutidy  necessary  toij;ain  the  nearest  of  its 
(iwii  piats.  In  the  same  .sense  are  to  betaken  the  cljiuscs  relaliii;^  to  the  renewal  or 
;ui;'iiii'ntation  of  military  supplies  or  arms  and  the  reeruitment  of  men.  As  the  vessrl 
iiiFirsllie  port,  so  is  she  to  leave  it.  without  additi<m  to  her  eti'eetive  }»ow(-r  of  doinij 
i!  jiUT  to  the  other  bellij^'crent.  if  her  magazine  is  supidied  witli  pow  der,  shot,  (ir 
sl'clls ;  if  new  jiuns  are  aihled  to  her  armament;  if  pistols,  or  muskets,  or  cutlasses,  or 
Miliii' iiiipleiiieiits  of  de.-fuetioii  ale  put  on  hoard;  if  men  an;  iceniiti  d  :  e\ciiif,  in 
tliisciliiys  when  steam  is  a  power,  an  excessive  snpi)ly  of  coa!  is  put  into  in-r  biinki:rs, 
tlie  iifiitral  will  have  failed  in  the  performance  of  its  d>  ry.' 

According  to  this  interpretati'.n  a  neutral  gcnernment  which  should 
Slitter  a  belligerent  cruiser  toollectany  rei>iurs  beyond  what  aieab.soluteiy 
iRces.Siiry  for  gaining  the  nearest  of  its  own  ports,  or  to  receive  more 
roal  than  woidd  be  eiKMigh  for  the  same  juirpose,  wouhl  'omuiit  a  breach 
(it  iK'iitral  duty.  It  may,  indee«l,  sometimes  be  foinid  convenient  by 
iKMitral  i»owers  to  imixi.se  restric*"ions  of  this  na.ture,  mon^  or  less  strin- 
i^eiit,  i»n  the  armed  vessels  of  biMigerents  admitte<l  into  their  ports; 
mill  this  was  done  by  Great  r>ri;ain  during  the  civil  war.  JJut  such 
lestrietions  were  not  then,  and  aie  not  now,  dictated  by  any  ride  of 
iiiternatiomd  obiigiition.  AN'ere  they  to  become  such,  and  were  the  obli- 
Liiition  to  be  construed  against  the  neuti'al  uitlithe  breadth  and  rigor 
itir  which  the  United  States  contend,  it  may  be  feared  that  neutral 
iMwors  would  rarely  be  secure  against  com[)lainrs  and  demands  for  coni- 
iHiisation  on  the  pait  of  one  belligerent  or  aiuHher. 

llaviiig  constantly  (luring  the  war  used  Urilish  ports  as  ])laces  of 
re.surt  for  its  own  cruisers,  and  having  rei)eatedly  obtained  ftu'  them 
tlierciii  successive  supplies  of  coal,  which  were  consumed,  not  in  retiirn- 
iii;;  lioine,  but  in  cruising,  the  Goveriiiiieiit  of  the  (United  Stafi's  now 
aiipeiirs  to  represent  this  very  act  as  a  breach  of  neutral  duty,  ami  to 
lini.l  Ureat  Britain  liable  for  any  ca.sesin  whi(;h  confederate  vcs.sels  may 
liavc  succeeded  in  obtaining  similar  facilities. 

Tliis  questi(ui,  however,  do<»s  iu)t  regard  Great  IJritain  alone.    The 

riovcrmnent  of  the  Uniteii  States  has  [ilainly  <leclared  that  it  regards 

these  rules  as  no  more  than  a  statement  of  previously  establi.shed 

I  Ifi]     rules  of  international  law.*    So  far  as  regards  the  second  ruU?  *ller 


'('use  of  tlu)  Cnited  States,  p.  107. 

•Ciise  of  the  United  States,  pp.  1  4f*,  149.  See  also  ]».  IU'2,  and  thePresidenl's  inessago 
to  (.'(m^'resM,  December  4,  l"'7l.  "  Tho  contraetinn  parties  in  the  treaty  have  under- 
lakiu  to  regard  as  between  themselves  certain  princiides  of  public  law,  for  wliieii  the 
1  iiitod  States  have  contended  from  the  commencement  .>f  their  history.  They  huv« 
iilsii ';;;ieed  to  bring  those  principles  to  the  knowledj^e  o.'"  the  «»tlier  nKuitinu!  powerN. 
i'wl  to  iuvite  them  to  accede  to  them,"' 


h 


222 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


Britannic  ^rnjosty's  j^ovornniont  concurs  in  tliis  view.  The  oxpvps. 
sioiis  upon  wliich  tlic  United  States  rely  belonp;  to  a  <'lass  in  coiiiiiinn 
use  anion«f  publicists,  who,  in  attempting  to  deline  the  duties  ot  inn 
trality,  are  accustomed  to  enn)loy  these  words  or  others  eciuivaUnt  tn 
them,  and  of  not  less  extensive  meaniufy.  Thus  the  phrase  "basedf 
naval  operations,"  employed  in  this  connection,  denotes  the  iisi'  of 
neutral  territory  by  a  beilijjferent  ship  as  a  station  or  point  of  deicutiiic, 
where  she  may  awiiit  and  from  whence  she  may  attack  her  ciicinv, 
That  these  ex[>ressions  have  not  hithevto  received  tlie  construction  wliitii 
the  United  States  would  ]>ut  u]»on  them  is  certain.  AVhether  tliev;ii(. 
to  receive  it  in  future  is  a  question  which  concerns  not  Great  Jiiitain 
only,  but  all  other  i)owers  which  may  hereafter  find  themselves  neutral  in 
maritime  warfare.' 

FURTIIEU   LIJIITATIGN  SUGGESTED  BY   THE  UNITED   STATES. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  insists  further  that  the  ftviionil 

Kuril,. r  hm,' ,ti,.n  ri<'lit  (►f  ucutral  powers  to  allow  free  entrance  into  and  (';;ivs> 

iniuMl.st',"t.'.  "  ""  from  their  jiorts  to  bellij^erent  ships  of  war  is  subject  to  one 

imi)ortant  exception.     This  excei)tiou  relates  to  vessels  which  have  been 

orij;inally  adai)ted  for  war  wholly  or  in  part  within  the  jurisdiction  of 


;'l'    )■ 


'A  (li.sliiiftion  has  soini'tiiiK's  boiMi  driiwii  between  .siicli  liospitiilitios  as  hniiiainiy 
re(iiiir<;s  to  be  j;i:intetl  to  all  bclliiferent  vessels  and  siieli  as  the  neutral  may  eoiinili' 
or  refiise  at  discretion.  (See  the  oiiiniou  of  Mr.  Ciishinj^,  tluMi  Attorney-G(!ner;d  ot'tliv 
United  States,  on  the  case  of  the  Sitka,  Appendix  to  Britisii  Case,  vol.  v,  p.  liilii.; 
"  Whether  or  not,"  says  Mr.  Cnshinj^,  "a  neutral  nation  has  the  riji;ht  to  refiiw,  aiisu- 
Intely  the  admission  of  any  belligerent  shi|)  into  her  i)orts,  is  an  abstract  (picstiuii, 
which  it  is  unne(.'essary  to  dis<  iiss  here.  It  snilices  to  say  that  the  {General  (liiticsdf 
liumanity  r<'(|uire  tliat  the  beUijieient  be  allowed  to  enter  for  the  ]>nipose  of  esrapin;' 
from  the  <lanjrer  of  the  seas,  ov  ]inrehasin<^  provision.s  and  miikinj^  repairs  indisiansi- 
ble  to  the  contiinianct;  of  tlu'  voyage  Everytliin;L;' accorded  beyond  this  must  lie  iv- 
yai'ded  as  an  act  ot"  international  .sociability  or  county,  not  of  humanity  or  oblij^atinn, 
*'  *  ■*  In  thi^  present  state  of  till!  law  of  nations,  it  is  uuiver.sally  conceded  tli;it 
the  armed  .ships  of  a  bellii;crent,  whether  men-of-war  or  i>rivat«!  armed  cruisers,  aietu 
be  admitted,  with  their  prizes,  into  the  territorial  waters  of  a  neutral  ibr  rrlni;i. 
whether  from  chase  or  fioni  the  perils  of  the  .se.i.  Tlii.s  is  a  ipiesti«)n  of  mere  temiioiiiiv 
asylum,  ac<<irded  in  obeilieiico  to  the  dictates  of  humanity  and  to  be  rej;nlated  by  tin' 
Kpecilie  exif;eney. 

'■  (iloinj;  Iteyond  this,  wo  (ind  that  the  ships  of  war  of  a  bellijier  it  are  generally  ad- 
iidtted  into  the  ports  of  the  mnitral,  even  when  there  is  no  exijj;ency  of  humanity,  ln.t 
still  under  certain  reservations.  The  neutral  nation  has  a  perlect  rij'ht  so  to  measure 
the  <'xtent  of  the  asylum  thus  aec«)rded  as  to  cover  its  t)wn  safety  and  ndain  the  iiii;aii.< 
of  enforeinjjt  respect  for  its  own  sover»i^;nty.  Thus,  in  Enrojie,  it  f{eneral!y  liapi"ii- 
that  war  is  eomnieneed  between  two  or  three  of  the  j^reat  powers  for  i)nrpo,sesof  imitii'il 
jealou.sy  or  ambition  of  their  own,  and  as  to  which  the  other  states  are  eomparativtly 
indilfei'enl  in  feelinjjor  interest,  or  have  contlietiu};  interests,  which  impel  them  to  nniaiii 
neutral  in  the  war.  lint,  very  soon,  as  the  burden  of  the  war  presses  on  oneoraiiotinr 
of  the  bellif>;erents,  h«',  haviufj;  nndertakt^n  more  than  Im  can  occomplish  alone,  mks 
to  persimde  oi' compel  the  neutral  stat«' to  join  him.  Or  he  cannot  t  tticiently  attaik 
liis  euiMiiy  without  »)ccupyin<f  the  territory  of  some  m-utral  state.  Or,  perceiviiig  tlmt 
liis  own  commercial  resources  are  wastinj;  away  in  the  war,  he  looks  resentfully  on  tlic 
jn'osperity  of  some  neutral  state,  whose  commerce  llourishes  at  his  expens(!.  Or,ji'al- 
oils  of  the  intentions  of  a  neutral  state,  ami  fearinj;  it  may  join  his  enemy,  he  seiks 
to  anticipate  such  an  event  by  crippling  the  military  forces  of  such  neutral  state.  Or, 
iinally,  beconnng  fatally  engaged  in  a  protracted  war,  until  it  has  at  length  degeneratnl 
into  a  mere  willful  contest  of  pride  iuid  pa.ssion,  the  Itelligerent  enters  upon  the  (It"- 
perate  and  frantic  plan  of  starving  his  adversary  by  cutting  oft'  all  the  neutral  torn- 
juerce,  the  vi-ry  attempt  to  do  whicli  is  an  outrage  on  the  law  of  mitions,  and  enii  '"' 
carried  out  only  bv  the  perpetration  of  every  kind  of  violence  ami  fraud  on  the  neutral 
nations."  He  proceeds  to  observe  that  "  it  is  not  material  whether  such  reguliitioiw 
<»perate  to  the  oenelit  of  one  or  the  other  belligerent  power."  The  argiuneut  oltlii' 
United  States  ni>w  is,  that  any  hospitalities  atibrded  to  belligerent  vessels  in  neutral 
]i(Uts,  beyond  tlose  which  Mr.  Cushing  described  in  1855  as  eoninianded  by  the  dietatts 
vi  huiuauity,  uud  obligatory  uu  all  neutral  powers,  are  violatiuua  uf  ueutrul  duty. 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


223 


tlie  nentral.  It  i.s  insisted  that  the  iieutiiil  goveriuneiit  is  bound  to 
seize  iinJ  detain  snch  vessels  whenever  they  may  enter  its  ports;  that 
this  i.s  a  <hity  wliich  it  owes  to  the  otlier  bellij>erent,  and  by  the  non- 
iiirfonnance  of  which  it  becomes  liable  to  a  demand  for  compensation. 

Ill  tlie  view  of  the  United  States  this  also  is  a  <»<'n('ral  rule  of  iiiter- 
uiitioiial  law,  which  existed  before  the  treaty  of  Washington,  binding; 
(III  all  nentral  powers,  and  is  expressly  athrmed,  also,  as  between  the 
United  States  and  CJreat  Britain,  by  the  lirst  of  the  three  rules. 

It  i.s  .stated  as  follows : 

A  nputral  jjovernnKMit  is  hon ml,  first,  to  use  (l:ie  (lili<fonct»  to  prcvciit  tlio  fitting 
nnt.ariniii;^.  or  «'(|iii()i»iiijr,  williiii  itsjiirisdirtion.of  iiiiy  vussi-l  whicli  it  lias  rciisoiiahi*.' 
jjimiml  to  bolicvn  is  intended  to  ernise  or  to  carry  on  war  aji;aiivst  a  power  witli  wliich 
it  is  at  peace  ;  and  also  to  use  like  dili;^enee  to  prevent  the  departure  from  its  Jiirisdie- 
timi  of  liny  vessel  intended  to  cruise  or  carry  on  war  as  aliove,  such  vessel  haviiif;  lieeii 
*|ii(ially  adapted,  in  wjiole  or  in  part,  within  such  Jurisdiction,  to  warlike  use.  'J'lio 
liiili'il  States  invite  the  particular  attention  of  the  trilmnal  to  the  continuiii;;-  eliarais 
t.r  lit' the  second  clause  of  tliis  rule.  The  violation  of  the  (irst  clause  takes  place 
nine  for  all  wiieii  the  otfeiidiujj;  vessel  is  lifted  out,  armed,  itv  eiiuijiped  within  the 
jiirisdictioii  of  the  neutral ;  but  the  ollense  under  the  second  clause  may  he  cmumitted 
lis  (it'teii  P"  ii  vessel,  which  has  at  any  time  heen  spiH'inl!;.'  adiijited,  in  wholt;  or  in 
part,  to  warlike  use,  within  the  jurisdiction  of  tin-  neutral, enters  and  departs 
[IT]  llllIUl)h^ste<l  from  out;  of  its  ports.  ^Kvery  time  that  the  Alaliaina,  or  tlii!  (leoroiiij 
or  the  Florida,  or  the  .Shenaudoah  came  within  Ihitish  jurisdiction,  and  was 
•iiill'iircd  to  deparr,  there  was  a  renewed  olfeiist!  i!<j;aiiist  the  sovereij^iity  of  (jreat  Ihit- 
iiiii  and  a  renewed  liability  to  the  United  .States.' 

Tlio  words  "'specially  adapted  for  warlike  use"  include,  aceordinji"  to 
the  United  States,  any  adai)tation  whatever  "  tor  the  hostile  use  of  a 
lu'llij^ereiit,  whether  that  adai)tation  be}»;an  when  the  keel  was  laid  to  a 
vessel  intended  for  such  hostile  use,  or  whether  it  was  made  in  later 
stajjes  of  constrnction,  or  in  titting-  out,  or  in  fnrnishinji",  or  in  eijuippinj?, 
or  in  anninft',  or  in  any  other  way.''-  In  every  case  in  which  an.vthing' 
wiiatever  had  been  <lone,  however  .slijiht,  to  fit  the  vessel  for  warlike 
use,  (for  the  lanj>iiage  of  the  United  States  is  framed  with  studied  care 
to  embrace  every  i)ossible  act  of  adaptation,)  the  obligation,  with  its 
attendant  liability,  attaches  on  the  nentral  government. 

This  duty  .seems  to  have,  according'  to  the  United  States,  no  limit  of 
time.  It  applies  to  vessels  which  have  "at  any  time"  received  any 
imrtial  adaptation  for  warlike  use  in  the  biiild:ng-yards,docks,  or  water 
nt' the  nentral  country;  it  applies  to  public  ships  of  war  commissioned 
by  i»  belligerent  i)o\ver ;  and  it  applies  to  them  indifferently  whether  the 
act  or  acta  of  adaptation  took  place  after  they  were  commissioned  or 
1)1  fore  it,  and  before  tiiey  came  into  the  possession  of  the  commissioning; 
power.  Literally,  it  nnght  even  be  taken  to  apply  to  cases  in  which  the 
adaptation  had  taken  place  for  purposes  totally  unconnecrted  with  the 
particidar  war  or  with  either  of  tiu»  Indligerents.  Had  the  United 
States  inteiuled  to  limit  in  any  way  their  [lecidiar  inter|»retation  of  the 
clause,  they  might  have  been  expected  to  state  the  limitation.  I»ut  it 
is  clear  that  they  had  no  such  intention,  for  tliey  have  been  careful  to 
employ  the  widest  and  most  comprehensive  language  they  could  possi- 
bly ('ouiiiiand. 

It  can  hardly  be  necessary  to  say  that  this  pretended  oblijjation, 
whereby  a  neutral  government  would  be  bound  to  seize  by  force  an.\ 
public  armed  ship  which  might  enter  its  ports,  and  of  which  there 
might  he  reason  to  believe  tliat  she  had  at  any  time  before  received 
some  partial  adaptation  for  war  within  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  neutral, 
inoiitliely  unknown  to  tlie  law,  unsupported  by  practice,  and  in  direct 

'  CuHo  uf  thu  Unitud  8tuteH,  p.  103. 
» Ibid.,  p.  16a. 


VI 


11- 


224 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


conllicl  witli  the  principles  which  have  hitlicrto  governed  the  admission 
of  ])iil)lic  .slii|).s  of  war  into  the  ports  of  frieiKlly  nations. 

Tliis  wouhl  ah)ne  be  sulhcicnt  to  condemn  the  interpretation  of  the 
second  rnle  snjLij<;ested  by  tlie  United  States,  even  if  it  conhl,  with  aiiv 
pla.isibility,  be  represented  as  tlie  natnral  meanin*^  of  tiie  words  ciii 
l)h)yed.  lint  it  is  not  their  natnral  njeanin};".  Xo  one  who  desired  to 
lay  down  such  a  principle  wonld  clothe  it  in  snch  language.  It  is  clcai 
that  these  words  i)oint  to  a  departure  fcdlowing  the  special  adaptation, 
while  the  hostile  purj^iose  still  rests  in  intention,  and  the  vessel  mnv 
still,  by  due  diligence,  be  prevented  from  quitting  the  neutral  teniton 
to  carry  that  pnr[)ose  into  execution  ;  and  that  they  could  not,  witliuiit 
violence,  be  api>lied  to  a  case  in  wlii(di  the  ship,  having  snccet'ded  in 
effecting  her  departure  and  tnially  quitted  the  neutral  Jurisdicrtion,  lias 
sul)sequently  re-entered  it  at  an  indefinite  distan(!e  of  time;  when,  in- 
stead of  being  merely  "intended  for  warlike  use,"  she  is  k  lown  to  be 
actually  engaged  in  hostile  operations,  and  when  her  original  ciiiuactei 
has  been  exchanged  for  tliat  of  ii  public  ship  of  war,  recognized  assiicli 
in  the  ports  of  other  neutral  states,  and  exenijjt  as  such  from  all  ]w,\\ 
Jurisdiction.  Unless  a  violation  of  neutrality  had  been  established  in 
due  course  of  law  against  such  a  vessel  while  proi)erly  subject  t(»  tlu 
neuti'al  jurisdiction,  the  (,iU'stion  of  fact  whether  sucii  a  violation  liail 
taken  place  could  not,  by  any  t\nm  of  proce(Mliiig,  be  investigated  he 
tween  the  neutral  power  and  the  belligerciut  whose  Hag  she  bore.  Kvtii 
if  the  i)roof  of  tin?  facts,  in  f'oro  eompcteiite,  were  as  easy  as  it  has  hecii 
generally  found  dillicult,  the  belligerent  power  would  Justly  deny  tin 
right  of  tlu^  neutral  to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  a  vessel  foi-ming  paitol 
its  public  maritime  fon^e,  lor  the  pur[)ose  of  any  such  incpiiry.  And  lo 
•letain  a  public  ship  of  war  in  a  neutral  i>ort  for  a(tts  done  bet'drc  in- 
had  obtained  that  character,  without  any  previous  notice  that  slu".  was 
not  at  liberty  to  come  in  ui)on  the  usual  terms,  would  \w  in  itself  an  ait 
of  war,  and  a  plain  violation  of  well  settled  rules  of  intern., tiuinil 
comity. 

Jler  Britannic  ]\raj(»sty's  government  observes  with  sincere  regret  tlia!, 
as  in  other  parti(;ulars,  so  more  especially  in  this,  the  (lovernnuMit  of  [W 
Uinted  States,  instead  of  accepting  in  a  fair  and  reasonable  sense  iiiKs 
which  the  two  powers  have  engaged  to  observe  toward  one  anotliorainl 
to  recomnuMid  tor  adoption  to  other  states,  seems  on  this  occasion  h\ 
have  considered  how  they  migh*-  be  iurned  to  the  greatest  advautiiyoiii 
the  i)resent  controversy,  and  with  that  view  to  have"  strained  the  con 
struction  of  them  to  the  very  utmost.  The  undue  extension  wliicli  It  is 
proi)osed  to  give  to  the  first  rule  does  not  accord  with  its  plain 
[IS]  and  initural  meaning,  was  never  contem])late(l  *l)y  tlu'  govern 
ment  of  Uer  liritannic  Majesty,  and  is  altogether  rejected  In 
Great  liritain. 

The  British  government  concurs  with  the  Governmen!  of  the  Unitcil 
States  in  holding  that  a  vessel  which  has  bi'coint^  liable  t()  arrest  ami 
seizure  within  neutral  Jurisiliction,  by  reason  of  a  violation  of  neutrnlitv, 
cannot  relieve  itself  from  that  lial)ility  by  mendy  removing  to  aiietlni 
place  within  the  same  Jurisdiction,  and  that  the  duty  of  the  miitiMl 
goverinnent  to  seize  and  detain,  where  such  a  duty  exists,  would  not  \w 
allected,  though  the  execution  of  it  might  without  any  want  of  due 
diligence  be  end)arraH8ed  or  prevented  by  the  mere  fact  of  siicli  re 
Hioval.  The  orders  issued  for  the  seizure  of  the  Alabama  under  be 
powers  of  the  foreign-enlistment  act  would  have  been  executed  ;it 
(iueenstown  or  Nassau,  had  she  gone  from  Liverpool  to  either  of  lin'*-*' 
places,  exactly  as  they  would  have  been  executed  at  Liverpool  it  tliiy  I 


i!illiill':'l^ 
Ml. 


m 


COUNTER    CA8E    OV    GREAT    IJRITAIN. 


225 


liiul  arrived  in  time.  But  the  Abibama,  wiser,  she  touched  for  the  first 
time  at  a  port  of  a  British  colony,  had  for  more  than  six  months  been 
commissioned  and  in  active  service  as  a  cruiser  of  the  Confederate 
jjtates;  had,  as  such,  foujjht  a  successful  action  with  a  United  States 
war  steamer;  and,  as  such,  has  been  received  at  the  French  island  of 
Martinique,  as  she  afterward  was  at  Fernando  tie  Noronha,  Bahia,  and 
Cherbourg.  And,  in  matters  relating  to  the  "'.tr,  it  was  the  duty  of 
i;ieat  Britain,  as  it  was  the  duty  of  other  neutral  powers,  to  treat  the 
Alabama  in  ex.actly  the  s.ame  manner  as,  under  corresi)onding  circuja- 
stances,  they  would  have  treated  a  public  ship  armed  and  commissioned 
by  a  recognized  sovereign  state. 

Her  Majesty's  Government,  in  its  Case  presented  to  the  tribunal  of 
iirbitration,  has  stated  the  following  propositions :' 

.Maritime  war  beiiij^  carriuc'i  on  by  hostilities  on  tlio  hi^jli  sons,  aiul  throujjb  tlio 
instrmueutiility  (ordinarily)  of  vessisl.s  cotnnii.ssionnd  by  imblic  authority,  a  neutral 
power  is  bound  to  recognizo,  in  matters  relating  to  tho  war,  coniinissions  issued  by 
iiieh  belligerent  and  captures  made  by  eaidi,  to  tho  same  extent  and  under  the  same 
lomlitions  as  it  recopfnizes  coinmissious  issnotl  and  eajitiires  made  by  the  other. 

Where  either  bellijjerent  is  a  coinniunity  or  body  of  persons  not  reeoj^nized  by  the 
iii'Utral  power  as  constitntinf^  a  sovtMMiijjn  state,  commissions  issued  by  such  beliiKerent 
ill e  recognized  as  acts  cmanatinjj,  not  inileed  from  a  sovereign  gov^^rnment,  but  from  a 
|ursoii  or  persons  exercising  de  facto,  in  relation  to  tlio  war,  the  powers  of  a  sovereign 
;,'overnnieut. 

I'ubl'O  s!'in3  .>t  war  in  the  service  of  a  belligerent,  <;ntoring  the  ports  or  waters  of  a 
luutral,  are,  by    'o  practice  of  nations,  exempt  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  neutral 
|iiiwcr.    To  withdmw  or  refuse  to  nicoguizo  this  exemption  without  previous  notice,  or 
without  such  iM)tit;o  to  exert,  or  attem|)t  to  <!xert,  jurisdiction  over  any  such  viisscl, 
wiiiihl  be  a  violation  of  a  comniuu  understanding,  which  all  :  itiuns  are  bound  by  guud 
liiith  to  respect. 
A  vessel  l)ecomos  a  public  ship  of  war  by  being  armed  and  commissioned,  that  is  to 
siiy,  fonimlly  invested  by  order  or  nnder  the  authority  of  a  government  with  the 
ihiiracter  of  a  ship  employed  in  its  nav  il  service  and  forming  part  of  its  marine  for 
imrposes  of  war.    There  are  no  general  rules  which  ]M'escril>e  how,  wliere,  or  in  what 
loriii  the  conmiissioning  must  be  etl'ectcd,  so  as  to  imin-ess  on  the  vessel  the  character 
lit  a  public  ship  of  wa.'-     What  is  essential  is,  that  the  appointuuiut  of  a  designated 
ulli.erto  the  charge  and  connnand  of  a  ship  likewise  designateil  be  made  by  the   gov- 
.iniiient  or  the  proper  department  of  it,  or  nmhu-  authority  <lelegated  liy  the  govern- 
liii'iit  or  dei)artinent,  and  that  the  charge  and  comman<l  of  the  ship  be  taken  by  the 
•;licerso  api)()inted.     Customarily,  a  ship  is  helil  to  be  commissioned  when  a  commis- 
-miiiMl  orticer  appointed  to  her  has  gone  on  board  f»f  her  and  hoisted  the  colors  ai>pro- 
piiated  to  tho  military  marine.     A  neutral  pow«'r  may  indeed  refuse  to  admit  into  its 
"Wii  ports  or  waters  as  a  public  ship  of  war  any  belligtnent  vesstd  not  commissioned  in 
ispi'iititMl  form  or  maniK^r,  as  it  may  impose  on  sucli  admission  any  (tther  conditions 
it  Its  pleasure,  provided  the  refusiil  be  applied  to  both  belligerents  inditl'ereutly  ;  but 
iiiis  should  lun,  be  done  without  reasonable  notice. 

llie  act  of  commissioning,  by  which  a  ship  is  invested  with  tho  character  of  a  public 
-\\\\\n(  war,  is,  for  that  lonrpose,  valid  and  conclusive,  notwithstanriing  that  the  ship 
liny  have  been  at  the  time  registered  in  a  foreign  country  as  a  ship  of  that  country, 
may  liav(^  been  liable  to  jirocess  at  the  suit  of  a  i)rivate  claimant  or  to  arrest  or 
1  nititure  under  the  law  of  a  foreign  state.  Tiie  commissioning  jtower,  by  commission- 
iiii  licr,  incorporates  her  into  its  naval  force  ;  and  by  the  same  ai;t  which  withdraws 
I'l  rniiii  the  o])eration  of  ordinary  legal  process  assumes  the  responsibility  for  all  ex- 
isting claims  which  could  otherwise  have  been  enforced  against  her. 

J'lJ       *The  principle  on  which  these  rules  repose  is  thus  explained  by 
Ortolan : 

'^'il  s'agitdo  naviros  do  guerre,  la  cotitume  intornationale  ost  constante:  ces  navires 
ristent  regis  uni(|uement  \ii\v  la  souverainete  de  leurs  jtays  ;  les  lois,  les  autoriti'^s,  et 
ip  jiuidictions  de  I'dtat  dans  les  eaux  duquel  ilssont  nu)uillesleur  restent  etraugeres  ; 
"■' II  ont  avec  cet  <^tat  que  des  relations  inlernationales  par  la  voio  dos  fonctionuaires 
'I''  la  localitd  conipctents  ptnir  de  pareilles  relations. 
I'i'ttiMoutumo  est-elle  fondi^o  en  rais(»n  ?  l*ent-elle  filnidefendue  niAme  an  point  de 
hill' tlicori(iue  ?  (>u  bien  mcrite-t-ello  lo  blAme  que  <iueh|ues  esprits  paraissent  vouloir 
|| itr  »iir  elle,  ou  les  restrictions  (juo  d'autros  s'etl'orceut  d'y  apjiorter  ? 


-m 


m 


ti 


!.">  A— ir 


'  British  Case,  pp.  4,  'Z'.\,  24. 


Ilr 


h  " 


m 


226 


TREATY    OF   WA.SIIINOTON. 


Le  naviro  «1e  giinrre  portaiit  eu  hoii  nein  line  partie  ilo  la  piiiHsancc  piibli)|iie  d^ 
I'^tat  anqii«;I  il  appartioiit,  un  cui'|>4  orgaiiiH<'«  <lo  fuiictionnaireM  et  d'ugeiits  do  ci'tif 
puissauce  dans  I'ordre  adniiniHtratif  ct  dans  I'ordre  uiilitaire,  soumettie  ce  navirc  ttle 
corps  organist^  qu'il  porte  aux  lois  t-t  aux  antorit^ss  du  i)ays  dans  les  eaux  <lnt|U(lil 
entro,  ce  seiait  vrainicnt  souuiettie  I'nne  do  ces  itiiissances  a  I'autre;  ce  serait  vonldir 
rcndie  impossibles  les  r<!latious  niaritinies  d'une  iiatioii  a  I'autre  par  bathiientN  dc 
I'dtat.  II  I'aut  oil  renonccr  a  ces  relations  ou  les  admettro  avec  les  conditions  indi- 
spcnsablcs  ponr  inaintenir  a  chaque  etat  souverain  son  inddpendance. 

L'dtat  propiiotaire  dii  port  on  de  la  rade  pent,  sans  donte,  il  I'egard  des  biltiincntsili' 
guerre  pour  les<iuels  il  anrait  des  motifs  de  sortir  des  ri^gles  ordiuaires  et  pacili(|iu'si|ii 
droit  des  gens,  lenr  interdire  I'entr^e  do  ses  eatix,  les  ysnrveiller  s'ilcroit  leiir  proseiui' 
dangereuse,  ou  lenr  enjoindre  d'en  sortir,  do  memo  (ju'il  est  libro,  tiuand  ils  sunt  tlaii>. 
la  mer  territoriale,  d'eniployer  a  leur  <^gard  les  moyens  de  sflretd  que  leur  voisinii". 
jieut  rendre  neeessaires,  sauf  a  r^pondrc,  euvers lY'tat  ampiel  ces  vaisseaux  aiipiirtiin. 
nent,  de  tontes  ces  mesures  cjui  pourront  etre,  snivant  les  dyt-Jiements  qui  les  aiinim 
niotivdes  ou  la  niauifire  dont  elles  atiront  etc  ox(^cutees,  des  actes  de  tUTeiise  uu de 
jtn^caution  legitime,  on  des  act«5s  de  ni<^liance,  on  des  oll'enses  graves,  ou  ni("'iiii)  il- 
causes  de  guerre ;  luais  taut  (,;'.'il  les  rev* '*•  il  doit  respecter  en  eux  la  souvtraimi. 
etrangere  dont  ils  sout  une  emanation  ;  it  ar  ,  ?ut  avoir,  par  cons<-(|uent,  la  pn'ti'iitinn 
deregir  les  i»ersonnes  (jui  se  trouvent  et  les  lai.s  qui  s<^  passent  a  leur  bord,  ni  de  tiiii, 
8ur  ce  b<u'<l  acte  de  puissance  et  de  souverainete. 

Cost  ainsi  quo  le  coullit  so  trouve  sageuient  regie  et  (|ue  rindt'pendauce  de  cliacin, 
«^tat  souvtaain  est  maintenue. 

Les  consequences  de  cette  iu'ati(iuo,  (jue  M.  Pinheiro-Ferreira  relt-ve  conuiio  los  pin- 
d^nuees  de  raison,  savoir,  cellos  relatives  a  I'asile  que  les  maltait(!urs  du  i>iijs  tronvi'. 
raient  .1  bord,  appartieunent  a  une  unitii-re  qui  revieiidra  plus  loin,  et  dont  lums  tiiiid 
roiiH  »'n  detail.  Mais  nous  pouvons,  des  a  pr(^seiit,  fain;  observer  <|ue  jamais  Ic  idin. 
uiandant  (I'un  naviro  de  guerre  n'appliquera  le  benefice  de  rexterritorialite  ih  sin 
navire  en  favour  des  malfaiteurs  du  pays,  jias  plus  (|ue  ranibassadeur  I'exterritorialii' 
«1(!  son  b6tol  et  do  ses  equipages  ;  et  que,  dans  le  cas  oii  certains  criminels  seraiciit  piii- 
veniis  a  se  refugier  a  son  bord,  il  existe  des  regies  interuationalos  relativemeiit  a  liiii 
expulsion  du  navire  ou  ii  leur  extradition. 

Eu  un  mot,  I'inviolabilite  qui  est  due  en  tons  lioux  aux  luivircs  do  guerre  coiiiiin'  i 
une  forteresso  llottante  de  I'etat  qui  les  a  armds,  renferinant  un  corps  organise  de  li 
puissance  publiquo  de  cet  dtat,  cette  inviolabilit<!  ii'ontraino  pas  I'irresponsabilito  (li< 
ofliciers  qui  commandent  ces  navires.  Mais  tons  les  actes  qui  s'y  referent,  sctit  de  la 
part  «lo  I'etat  dans  les  eaux  du((uel  sont  niouill^s  les  iiavinss  a  I'egard  do  cos  naviro. 
soit  rt'ciiiro(|uement,  tons  ces  actes  sont  actes  dc^  reliitions  iuternationales,  et  les  coiiw 
<[ueneesou  nqtarations,  s'il  y  a  lieu,  doivent  en  etre  poursuivios  par  voio  diploniatii|iii 

Cette  inviolabilito  ne  diminuo  en  rien,  du  reste,  le  droit  qu'a  touto  nation,  si  lena 
vire  de  giuTre  vitiut  a  commettre  contre  olio  des  act«'s  d'aggression,  d'hostilito,  ou  il' 
vi(jlcuce  (|uelcon([ues,  de  prendre  imm(<diatomenttoutes  les  mesures  et  d'employer  taii< 
les  moyens  neeessaires  a  une  legitime  d«ifense. 

Elle,  n'empccbe  pas  non  plus  que  les  na>ires  de  guerre  soient  sonmis  al'observatin:: 
des  reglements  sanitaires  du  pays  ou  ils  veuleut  at)order.  Les  epreuves  iniposrs  iwr 
ces  reglements  sont  des  conditions  miscs  a  I'admissiou  des  navires  dans  les  eaiix  din 
pays;  elles  ne  sont  uullement  en  contradiction  avec  lo  droit  d'extorritorialiti-  doii 
jouisseut  les  batiments  de  guerre  entres  dans  ces  eaux. 

II  I'csulte  de  tout  ce  (|ui  precede  (|ue,  loin  de  desapprouver,  au  point  de  \\\c  di''i 
pur(!  raison,  la  coutume  dn  <lroit  international  positif  a  I'dgard  des  navires  de  ^fiierif, :! 
taut  tenir  cetto  coutume  pour  bonne  et  pour  <ligne  d'etre  maintenue  en  tlieoric  ei)in:ii 
en  pratique. ' 

The  principle  laid  down  in  the  prectMlino-  extract  is  clear,  ami  tin 
consequences  which  tlow  from  it  are  equally  clear.     A  vessel  coininis 
sioned  as  a  public  ship  of  war,  enteriii}?  ti  foreign  i)ort,  is  a  portion  •! 
the  naval  fon'e  of  the  government  by  which  she  is  commissioned,  m\- 
manded  by  its  oflicers,  and  displitying  the  ensigns  of  its  autlioiiK. 
Any  jict  of  force  directetl  agiiinst  her  (uidess  to  prevent  or  repel  afrf!Tt'> 
sion,  or  compel  her  to  depart  after  having  been  refpiired  to  do  so  liv 
conq)etent  authority)  would  be  directed  against  her  governiiiciit.  nm! 
would  at  the  same  time,  if  done  without  previous  warning,  bean  iiitVin  | 
tion  of  a  rec()gnized  tuulerstaiuling,  ou  tlie  faith  of  which  she  t'iit(wl. ' 
aiul  on  the  observaiuic  of  which  she  had  a  right  to  rely.     It',  wliilf  iM 
neutral  water.s,  she  commits  any  violation  of  neutrality  or  other  oliciisi 
against  the  neutral,  force  may  uiuloubtedly  bo  employed  in  any  win  I 


'  Regies  Internationales  etdiploinatit!  do  la  mer  (4tli  edition,)  vol.  i,  p.  I'.M'. 


WSI^ 


COrNTER   CASE    OF    G^EAT    BRITAIN. 


227 


wliich  may  be  necessary  in  order  to  prevent  or  arrest  the  unlawful  act 
iiiul  to  compt  I  her  departure.  But  redress  ought  not  to  be  sought 
against  the  ship  herself;  it  should  be  sought,  if  needful,  against  her 
jroverninent.  A  fortiori,  this  is  true  if  the  ofl'ense  were  committed 
lletbre  she  arrived  at  the  neutral  port.  Thus,  of  the  violations  of  neu- 
trality conunitted  during  the  rvar,  the  grossest  and  most  flagrant 
20]  by  far  was  that  *perpetrated  by  the  Wachusett  in  the  harbor  of 
Bahia.  The  Brazilian  authorities  would  have  been  amply  J usti- 
tied  in  tiling  on  that  vessel  while  engaged  in  the  act,  and  sinking  lier  if 
necessary.  If  she  had  afterward  presented  herself  in  a  Brazilian  port, 
they  would,  doubtless,  have  refused  her  admission ;  but  they  would 
liave  rightly  abstained,  even  on  such  provocation,  from  seizing  and 
detaining  her.  A  niulto  fortiori,  the  same  proposition  holds  good  if  the 
act  complained  of  were  done  before  the  ott'ending  ship  came  into  the 
possession  of  the  commissioning  government,  or  before  she  was  incor- 
|iorated  into  its  naval  service. 

These  principles  are  recognized  by  publicists  and  sanctioned  by 
iisajjp.  There  is  not  a  maritime  power  in  the  world  which  would  not 
ivseut  any  violation  of  them  ;  and  it  would  bo  the  duty  of  any  naval 
(itlicer  to  lesist  snch  a  violation,  unless  it  were  supported  by  manifestly 
superior  force.  They  do  not  extend  to  prizes  brought  into  neutral  ports 
liy  the  belligerent  vessel,  if  cai>ture<l  within  the  waters  of  the  neutrr.l, 
(iilty  a  vessel  unlawfully  armed  within  her  jurisdiction  and  during  t'le 
(nii'O  inmiediately  following  sucli  armament.  These  the  neutral  may 
restore,  and  it  may  be  his  duty  to  do  so,  on  the  application  of  the  orig- 
inal owners  or  their  government. 

As  to  the  nature  of  the  proof  which  nmy  be  required  that  a  vessel 
claiming  the  character  of  a  public  ship  of  war  is  really  such,  M.  Ortolan 
observes : 


^1 


Lis  prcuvesile  la  nationalitr- ot  <lu  taracti'ie  d'un  batiiiioiit  ile  j;iu'ir»i  .s*tiit  tlaiis  lo 
{iiivilluii  et  dans  la  llaiiiiiie  (|ii'il  fait  battrc  a  Ha  curiic  et  an  liaut  (1<!  scs  niatN  ;  dans 
rattcstatiou  de  sou  cotiiiiiaiidant,  donin'-e,  an  Ixfsoiu,  siir  sa  parole  d'hciiieiir  ;  dans  la 
iiiiimissiou  de  cc  coniniandant,  et  dans  los  ordres  ([u'il  a  icvns  de  son  souvt-raiu. 

I.I'  [lavillon  t't  la  tianimc  sont  indices  visildes  ;  niais,  dans  certains  cas,  on  u'est  tenu 
ily  ajoiitcr  I'oi  (pie  lors«iu'ils  ont  t'-te  ajtijnyes  d'un  conp  «le  canon.  L'attestation  dii 
"tiiiniuiilant  i)ent  etre  exi<!;ibli' :  les  autres  preiives  doivcnt  sc  prcsuiuer  •  et  soit  en 
liliiiii-  iiicr  soit  ailleurs,  aucnne  puissance  t'trauf^fre  n'a  le  droit  d"eu  obtenir  I'exliibi- 

He  refers  also  to  the  answer  returned  by  the  government  of  theNeth- 
iilaiuls  to  that  of  the  LTnited  States  res[)ectiiig  the  reception  of  the 
Sumter  at  Curayoa,  and  to  the  opinion  pronounced,  in  1782,  by  the  gov- 
•  iimient  of  Russia  in  the  matter  of  the  J)anisli  corvette  St.  John,  soized 
ill  Spanish  waters,  notwithstanding  the  display  of  her  pendant  and  the 
t'cliuatiou  of  her  commanding  otiicer : 


l.a  Kiissjo  I'nt  plus  explicito.     Elle  Jui^ea  dans  sa  reponse : 

"1.  ^^iiil  est  confornie  anxprincipesdu  droit  des<fens<|u'un  butinifut  autoriso,  selou 
I  lis  iisajjcs  de  la  cour  ou  de  la  mition  a  la(|Uello  il  appartient,  a  porter  pavilion  niilitaire, 
iliiit  •■trc  t'livisafje  dcs  lors  coniine  nn  batiniont  arnio  en  guerre. 

"1  (^ne  ni  lu  forme  de  ce  batinient,  ni  sa  destination  anfcrieure,  ni  le  nonibro  d'indi- 
''i'lns(|ui  cu  coniposent  IVquipage,  ne  peuvent  plus  alterer  en  Ini  cette  qualit<^  iulid- 
I  Mitc,  ponrvu  que  I'otficier  conunaudaut  soit  de  marine  niilitaire." 

II  iK'xiste,  quo  nous  sneliions,  aucun  trait*^,  ni  aucnn  acte  public  dans  lesquels  ee 
piriuiipe  pmclame  [)ar  la  Kussie    ait  etc  sanctionnc'-  depuis  ;  niais  il  Test  incontestable 
"'cut  par  la  coutuine  gt^nerale.' 

The  established  practice  of  maritime  nations,  including  the  United 

'  Ragles  iiiternatioiudes  et  diploniatie  de  la  mer,  (4th  edition,)  vol.  i,  pp.  IHl,  185. 


J'  > 


fei    «  '    i- 


22H  TREATV    OF    WASHINGTON'. 

States  and  Great   Dritaiu.  aceonls  with  the  foregoing  stateiiieiiLs  oi 
Ortolan.' 

[21j        AUG13IENT    <»F    THE     UNITED    STATES. — *•  WHAT     IS     Dl-fi  DIU 

GEXCE  ? " 

Passing  from  the  question,  what  classes  of  acts  a  iieutr.<l  |k»wci  ;. 
•^hn  .  .1-  ,  Ijouml  to  use  tlue  diligence  to  i»r»-veut.  to  the  lurtlurijue- 
*'"  "■  tion.  what  isdne  diligence.  Iler  Majesty's  governuient  tiL<i^ 

that  "  these  words  aft  not  reganled  by  the  Unite«l  States  as  chanjdij.. 
in  any  lesiK-ct,  the  obligations  of  a  neutral  regarding  the  uiatier.N^ 
ferred  to  in  the  rules,  as  those  obligations  were  innM>>e<l  by  the  |iriiii; 
jdes  of  iiiternational  law  existing  In-fore  the  conclusion  of  the  Tnaty.' 
Her  Majesty's  government  concurs  with  that  of  the  Unite«l  .Stat»>:: 
holding  that  the  words  "due  diligence"  intnxluceil  n«  new  or  ad«litiijii.t 
obligation.  They  exact  fi-om  the  neutral,  in  the  dis<harge  of  tlie  diiti'- 
imposed  on  him,  that  measure  of  care,  and  no  other,  wliich  is  rwjuiiv.. 
by  tlie  ordinary  principles  of  international  jurisprudence,  and  the  ab>t^!j.> 
of  which  constitutes  negligence. 

Her  Majesty's  government  will  not  follow  the  Government  of  lu- 
United  States  through  the  observations  which  it  has  presented  to  tLr 
arbitrators  on  the  nature  and  degrees  of  negligence,  but  will  notice  on': 
the  definition  which,  at  the  close  of  those  observations,  it  has  atten)i>iK 
to  supply : 

Th«>  I'niteil  Statt->  understaiiil  iLat  the  iliii:i«-nce  tibicfa  is  call«Hl  for  h\  tbe  nilr. 
the  Tri'sity  «>f  \Va.'>bin;noD  is  a  dm-  «Iili;i«-nte :  that  i.s.  a  ilili«ieiMf  ]»mprtrtiiiii<il  u,  \^ 
inafjiiitiuh;  of  the  snl>je«  t.  aud  to  the  dignity  aud  strength  of  the  power  wbiih  i?  t- 
exereis»>  it ;  a  diligence  which  >hal].  I»t  the  use  of  activ«-  vi;filauce.  and  ol  all  rl- 
other  iiieun.s  in  the  powtrr  of  the  !ieiitral.  through  ai]  stages  of  the  transaction,  ytr^rr 
its  soil  from  l»ein;i  violatnl:  a  dili}:t-!u-e  that  shall  in  like  inaun«-r  deter  desijiniu::  Uj^: 
from  cnnimittiii:;  acts  of  war  uiHin  the  soil  of  the  neatnil  a^^ainst  its  will,  ami  iLi- 
possibly  diai;;iiti:i  it  inti>  a  war  which  it  wonid  av<iid:  a  dilijjeure  which  iir<>iiijit»T- 

'  The  ^ieneral  inminnity  of  pnhlic  shi|>»  nf  war  from  any  foreijtn  jnrisdictinn,  civ:] 
criminal,  is  thus  >tat«l  in  a  work  of  acknowl»-<lsjMl  authority.  <  kent'.s  Coninientarir^  •: 
American  Law,  vol.  i.  i».  l-'Vi:?     "ThU  right  of  s*tjn-h  is  confined  to  private  inerihi'::- 
ves.scls,  and  doe*  i»ot  apply  to  puhlic  «hi|is  of  war.     Their  iiuiiinuity  from  the  eXfi>.-  | 
of  any  civil  or  criminal  jnrij-liction  l»iit  that  of  the  sovereign  iMiwer  to  wliich  iL-" 
lu'lonj;  is  nnifomdy  ass«-rt«-<l.  clainie«|.  and  con«-t-«lt-«l.     A  contrary  doctrine  is  not  t"l» 
found  ill  any  Jurist  or  writer  <id  the  law  of  nations,  or  aduiitte<!  in  any  treaty,  ar.'. 
«'vcry  a<-t  to  the  contrary  ha.>  ijet-n  promptly  nu-t  aini  condeiniied."     is*  \Vli»-at<Hi.  E'c- 
niciits  of  International  I^w.  p.  1.">1.  nl.  l-:>'i:  -If  there  W  no  express  prohihition.  ;i- 
]M)rts  of  a  frn-ndly  >tat»-  are  con>iderrtl  a-«  oj«en  to  th»-  liiihlic  anneil  and  coinniiv.;.':  . 
sliijis  licloii>iiiij»  to  anoth>-r  nation  with  wh«»m  tfiat  state  i-  at  |»-ace.     Snch  sliii- 
cNfiiiiit  from  the  jnri^lii-tion  of  the  ItN-al  trihiina]>  and  authorities,  whether  thev  riii': 
the  )iorts  iiiwler  tlie  liceii.-^-  inipiieti  front  the  aii>-<-nce  o(  any  prohibition,  or  uii<l>-r .: 
exjiri'ss  jiermission  siipnlat*-fl  by  tr»-:ity."    The  pnnciple  of  the  mle  was  laid  dowj'" 
t'liicf  Justice  Marshall.  ilt-Iivering  the  jiidgnient  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  I'ait-. 
States,  ill  the  case  of  th«-  Exchange,  a  ve>s>^l  lielouging  to  an  American  citizen,  wi'^- 
liad  been  seized  in  a  Spani-h  |>ort  by  the  French  g«»verument  and  converted  intoi}"- 
lic  slii|)  of  war.  ami  whieh  her  original  owner  afierwaid  atteinpte<l  to  reclaim  on  i^: 
ariival  at  I'hiladelphia.     After  ol«s«-r\ing  that  private  iier^jii»  entering  a  foreign  cix:-- 
try  are  not  exempt  from  the  local  jniistliction.  the  Chief  Justice  i»roc««ded:  "Bnt'*' 
situation  of  a  i»iil»lic  ship  is  in  many  respects  ditlen-nt.    She  constitutes  a  part  ofib- 
military  force  of  her  nation,  acts  under  the  iniiix-iliate  and  direct  comman<i  of  her-' 
ercigii,  is  employol  by  him  in  national  objet-t.-.     He  has  many  and  jiowerfiil  iin4:'- 
for  prevnting  tlioc«e  obj»-«-ls  from  l»eiiig  defeate<l  by  the  interference  of  a  foreign  >'*'' 
Such  interfi  reiice  cannot  take  place  without  s^riwi.-ly  aflvcting  his  |»ower  and  dijoiry 
The  implied  license.  theref«>re.  under  wbieh  such  vess«-l  enters  a  friendly  port  may  w-l 
sonably  l>e  constme«l.  and.  it  s<-eui»  to  the  conrt.  ought  to  be  construed,  as  containis:! 
ait  exemption  fn»ni  the  juri^Iictitui  of  the  sovereign  within  whose  territory  sbefUi»"l 
the  rites  of  hospitality."     (Crauch"*  I>e|iorts.  vol.  \  ii.  p.  I'Xt.)     The  rule  was  al?oariinB!<  r 
by  Mr.  Justice  Stor>-.  one  of  the  greatest  jurists  who  ever  adometl  the  l'uifc<l  StaJ*^ 
in  the  ca.se  of  the  Santu«»inia  Trini<lad.     It  i»  assume*!  in  Mr.  Cu>hing's  opinion  nirnn  | 
to  above,  (p.  16.)  in  the  caseof  tlu-  Sitka. 

-Case  of  the  Unite«l  States,  p.  '21. 


COrXTER    CASE    OF   GREAT   BRITAIN. 


229 


■^i 


t     1 


-ritral  to  the  most  energetic  lucnsures  to  discover  any  jmrpose  of  doing  tlie  acts  Ibr- 
..i.iru  by  it>  {joo«l  faith  as  a  neutral,  and  imposes  ui>oii  it  the  obligation,  when  it  re- 
r;v«*the  kuowlMlge  of  an  intention  to  commit  such  acts,  to  nse  all  the  means  in  its 

■...«er  to  prevent  it.' 

Her  Maje.sty*s  government  li.ts  been  unable  to  eollert  from  this  tlefi- 
L:tioutlie  information  which  it  is  doubtless  intendetl  to  convey.     It  may 
rvailily  be  conceded  that  the  care  exerted  by  a  {jovernment  to  prevent 
■  iohuious  of  its  neutrality  should  bear  sonu'  proportion  to  the  probable 
>iiii.*e<|iienccs  of  such  otten.ses.     It  may  be  conceiled  also  that  the  re- 
ijiousibility  incuired  by  failin<r  to  prevent  an  ottense  must  materially 
ifjieml  on  the  power  which  the  jjovernnient  possessed  of  preventing  it. 
Nitaras  this,  the  llritish  government  concurs  with  the  Government  of 
:!ie  I'liited  States.     liut  Her  ^Injesty's  government  cannot  admit  that 
•he  measure  of  diligence  due  from  neutral  powers  ought  to  be  propor- 
■me*\  in  any  way  to  their  relative  degrees  of  dignity ;  it  knows  of  no 
.i>iiDction  l>etween  more  dignitied  and  less  dignified  powers;  it  regards 
all  sovereign  states  as  enjoying  cipial  rights  and  equally  subject  to  all 
i>nlinary  international  obligations;  and  it  is  tirndy  persuaded  that  there 
> no  state  in  Europe  or  America  wliich  would  be  willing  to  claim  or 
anrpt  any  immunity  in  this  respect  on  the  ground  of  its  inferiority  to 
..thers  in  extent,  military  force,  or  population.     In  truth,  the  arbitrators 
a  ill  have  clearly  perceived,  from  this  .statement  already  presented  to 
:uem  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  that  in  a  country  which,  with  free 
',*titntion.s,  jKi-ssesses  a  large  commercial  marine  and  u  very  extensive 
>biii-building  trade,  the  ditticulty  of  preventing  enterprises  of  this  na- 
ture is,  instead  of  being  less,  far  greater  than  in  countries  which  are 
:i"t  .so  iKjpulous  and  w  here  these  conditions  are  not  united ;  aiul  Just 
aiiowauce  ought  to  be  niade  for  this  ditlicnJty.    The  assertion  that  due 
diligence  means  a  diligence  which  shall  prevent  the  acts  in  question, 
ml  shall  deter  men  from  committing  them,  if  taken  literally,  can  only 
M^ify  that  no  government  can  be  held  to  have  done  its  duty  which  has 
Ml  been  completely  successful.    Of  all  the  powers  in  the  world,  such  a 
:r«t  would  most  .severely  condemn  the  (Jovernment  of  the  United  States. 
It  not  taken  literally,  it  can  contribute  nothing  to  a  serious  d'scussiou. 
It  has  been  .shown,  by  ample  evidence,  in  the  case  presented  on  the  part 
"lUreat  ISritaiii.  that  the  measures  adopted  by  the  British  government 
iliti  prevent  and  deter  men  from  enterprises  which  would  have  violated 
•r  inqteriled  her  neutrality ;  all  that  the  United  States  have  to  com- 
l.iiii  of  is,  that  these  nu*asures  proved  inettectual  to  prevent  or  deter, 
in  a  very  small  number  of  cases,  in  which  the  agents  contrivetl 
~i     to  e.scai»e  ob.>*ervatiou,  *or  the  ditbculty  of  obtaining  evidence 
was  gi"eat.    That  due  diligence  requires  a  government  to  use  all 
the  means  in  its  i»ower,  is  a  proposition  true  in  one  .sense,  false  in 
mother :  true,  if  it  means  that  the  government  is  bound  to  exert  hon- 
|«>tly  and  with  rea.sonable  care  and  activity  the  means  at  its  disposal; 
Jtalse.  impracticable,  and  absurd,  if  it  means  that  a  liability  arises  when- 
jtverit  is  iMXssible  to  show  that  an  hour  has  been  lost  which  might  have 
|l**n  gained,  or  an  accidental  delay  incurred  whir-h  might,  by  the  ut- 
jnjo>t  foresight,  have  been  prevented  ;  that  an  expedient  which  might 
pjave .sncceede«l  has  not  l>cen  tried;  that  means  of  obtaining  iuforma- 
jtion  which  are  deemed  unworthy  or  improper  have  not  been  resorted 
jt":  or  that  the  exertions  of  an  otlicer  or  servant  of  government  have 
[iM>t  been  taxed  to  the  utmost  limit  of  his  physical  capacity. 

Nor  can  we  fail  to  observe  that,  in  proi»ortion  as  we  extend  the  duty 
Iff  jtreveution  incumbent  on  neutral  governments,  from  hostile  enterprises 
l^liieh  aiv  o|>en  and  flagrant  to  acts  of  a  more  doubtful  character  which 

'  Case  of  the  United  States,  p.  15"*. 


:i 


r: 


230 


TREATY   OP    WASHINGTON. 


border  Oil  the  line  betwixt  the  lawful  ami  the  uulawful,  it  becomos  more 
and  more  difficult  to  exact  from  the  neutral,  in  the  performance  of  that 
duty,  iH'culiar  and  extraordinary  vigilance  and  activity.  The  duty  of 
preventing  the  open  assembling  within  neutral  territory  of  an  arinctl 
hostile  exi>edition  against  a  neighboring  country  is  plain  and  obviou>. 
and  requires  only  a  prompt  exercise  of  adequate  force.  But  it  is  other 
wise  when  we  come  to  acts  of  a  different  class,  the  criminality  of  which 
depends  on  a  latent  intention;  such,  for  example, as  the  mere  procuring; 
for  belligerent  purposes  from  the  yards  oi  u  neutral  ship-builder,  whost' 
ordinary  business  it  is  to  build  ships  of  all  kinds  for  customers  ot"  al! 
nations,  a  vessel  with  some  special  adai)tation  for  war.  There  is  nothins 
in  the  relation  of  a  neutral  to  a  belligerent  to  cast  on  the  former  tht 
duty  of  exercising,  within  his  own  territory,  a  constaut  and  miuut' 
espionage  over  ordinary  transactions  of  comnierce  for  the  protection  of 
the  latter.  This  relation,  always  onerous  to  the  neutral,  is,  at  the  same 
time,  it  must  be  remembered,  purely  involuntary  on  his  i)art.  It  i» 
forced  on  him  by  the  quarrels  of  his  neighbors,  in  which  he  has  no  con 
cern,  or  by  their  internal  discords,  when  those  discords  break  out  into 
civil  war. 

Iler  Majesty's  government  has  not  fittempte«l  a  task  which  has  Itai 
fled,  as  it  believes,  the  ingenuity  of  jurists  of  all  times  and  countiii'.-i- 
that  of  defining  with  any  approach  to  precision,  ai)art  from  the  circiiin 
stances  of  any  particular  case,  what  shall  be  deemed  due  diligence  m 
reasonable  care.  In  its  Case,  already  presented  to  the  Tribunal,  it  \\a- 
stateil  some  general  pro))Ositions,  which  it  believes  to  be  consonant  witli 
justice,  and  supported  by  such  analogies  as  may  be  fairly  drawn  Irom 
the  private  law  of  Europe  a;id  America.'  It  leaves  it,  however,  to  tlu 
arbitrators,  who  know  what  are  the  ordinary  powers  of  governineiit>. 
what  the  ditticulties  they  labor  under,  and  what  may  reasonably  ainl 
wisely  be  expected  from  them,  to  determine,  upon  a  careful  consider,! 
tion  of  the  facts,  and  on  the  same  luinciples  by  which  the  Htatts  t" 
which  they  themselves  belong  would  be  willing  to  be  judged,  wbetlici 
on  the  part  of  Great  IJritain  there  has  or  has  not  been  that  want  i : 
due  care  or  diligence  which  makes  repar.'ition  a  duty.-' 

On  the  question,  in  what  cases  and  within  what  limits  compensatina 
in  money  may  reasonably  be  deemed  due  from  a  neutral  nation  lor  in 
juries  occasioned  by  such  a  want  of  care.  Her  Majesty's  goveriiuien: 
will  here  only  say,  that  the  position  of  Great  Britain  appears  to  bo  iiii> 
appi-ehended  by  the  Uiiitecl  States,  and  that  the  two  decisions  ot  ;i: 
American  court  cited  in  the  case  have  no  bearing  upon  it.'  Sucbn 
question;  it  is  evident,  is  not  within  the  cognizance  of  any  inunieipiij 
tribunal,  however  respectable;  and  no  municipal  tribunal  has  atteini>tin 
to  pronounce  judgment  on  it.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  Stato. 
in  the  cases  cited,  decided  only  that  of  two  armed  vessels  one  bad  Ittii 
unlawfully  fitted  out,  while  the  other  had  received  an  unlawlu'  aii;: 
mentation  of  force,  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  aini 
that  prizes  taken  by  each  and  brought  within  the  jurisdiction  ot  tlu 
Unitetl  States  ought  to  be  restored. 

The  arbitrators  will  now  be  in  a  situation  to  judge  what  value  to  at 
tribute  to  the  assertion,  "  that  the  principles  for  which  the  United  State? 

'Cast-  ut  Great  Britain,  j).  ^4,  urojtositioiisD,  10,  11 ;  aiul  pp.  lOtt,  U57. 

"■  J»n  rt-ste,"  fays  a  distinj-nislieU  Frcnoli  jniist,  treating  of  this  «iil>jeet  in  toiiiif  | 
tioh  with  private  law.  •' du  re.ste,  «oit  t|u'il  s'af^isse  d'uue  obligation  de  doinicr on  c.r 
la  ire.  la  protestation  des  faiites  e^t,  dans  la  jtratiqne.  a  i»tine  one  «piestioii  dctin''' 
1^  jKiint  do  fait  y  est  ton.jonrs  dominant,  <|nand  il  n'y  est  pas  tont." — Lari>inl'ii'>'  j 
Tht'^rit  1 1  jtraiiifiie  de"  oMiijationn,  vol.  i,  p.  417. 
3  Thi-  Sautissinia  Trinidad  and  the  Gran  I'ara.     Case  of  the  United  States,  p.  "JOo 


COrXTEK    CASE    OF    (iKKAT    MKITAIN 


231 


^^wm 


cmtoiid  liavt*  boen  recojj[iiized  by  tlio  statesmen,  tlie  jurists,  the  luihli- 
lists,  ami  the  U'gishitors  of  Great  Jtritaiii;  that  they  have  the  approba- 
tion of  the  most  etninent  authorities  upon  the  eontinent  of  Europe;  and 
ibat  they  have  been  reganled  by  the  other  powers  of  Europe  in  tlieir 

lU'alin^  with  each  other/"  The  truth  is,  that  the  alleged  princi- 
:'.;      pli's  from  which  Her  3Iajesty's  govcrn*njent  has  declared  its 

dissent  were  never  before  seriouslj-  asserted,  and  never  admitted 
or  loeofrnizeil  by  any  power  in  Europe  or  America;  that  they  have  the 
>ii|i|K>rt  of  no  publicist  of  authority ;  that  they  are  unknown  in  (treat 
Jlritain:  and  were,  up  to  the  time  when  these  claims  were  brought  for- 
ward, efpially  unknown  in  the  United  States.- 


Casc  of  tli«'  Unitwl  States,  p.  20.*. 

■The  fullowiiifj  extract  from  l{c(l<li«!'8  "Kcs«'arclie8  in  Maritime  ami  Iiitoriiational 
l.iw."  ( vril.  ii.  i».  '2\*K)  is  apposite  to  tho  {jHiJcral  <m«'stioii  how  far  m-iitral  jjoviTiniu^nts 
irr  l»«»iiinl  to  intfrfere  activt-ly  for  the  juirpose  of  restraining  their  Niihjeets  from  avXn 
liliii};  witliin  the  ]>roliihition8  of  international  law.  It  is  an  abstract  (»f  the  views 
. \lir»Mse«l  in  the  "Considerations  8ur  les  Droits  Hi-eiproi|iies  des  I'nissanees  Helliyc-r- 
iiitt-s  ft  ties  Pnissanees  Nentres  siir  Mer,"  of  Tetens,  a  w^^rk  wliieh  Mr.  Keddie  «les<ril»es 
i>"the  most  free  from  national  bias,  and  most  impartial  ex|>osition  of  the  jreneral 
j'Tini'ipIes  of  maritime  international  law  which  has  appeared  in  recent  times:" 

•  It  is  a  wise  foresii^ht  for  neutral  ;;overnmeiits  to  obviate,  during  war,  as  far  as  pos- 

•  Ml',  all  illej^al  conduct  on  the  part  of  their  subjects,  for  the  double  advantaire  of  pre- 
-rviii;;  tiiem  from  risks,  and  ol  i>reventin;^  the  suspicions  of  bellijjerents  n<^ainst  the 
;r.iiUr>' wiio  s:iil  under  neutral  lla;;s.  The  conduct  exhibited  by  .several  individuals 
;'i  .1  neutral  nation  pnMluces  naturally  a  ]ire8uniption  for  or  a;;ainst  their  fellow-coun- 

rmien.  which  seldom  tails  to  havo  consequences  favorable  or  unfavorable  to  the  vc- 
-l?of  that  nation  which  the  belli};er«!nt8  encounter.  There  is  also  a  political  rea.son 
;»r  iii'iitral  ;;overnments  watching  their  subjects  in  this  respect.  They  cannot,  indeed, 
iiiaiiift-st  more  authentically  their  perfect  neutrality  than   liy  clear  and  precise  ordi- 

inn's  for  their  commerce  and  navi;;ation  durin;^  war,  ami  by  a  rigorous  police,  severely 
■iiretteil  against  those  who  contravene  them.     The  more  they  exert  themselves  to  re- 

•  raiii  fnmil,  the  more  tlu-y  are  in  a  state  to  pr<»tect  their  loyal  sulijects,  and  to  inter- 
i"~'  with  success  in  the  cii-ses  of  just  claims  made  by  the  latter  against  the  cruLsers  of 
:lii-  l»»'lh^erent  powers. 

"Wiiat  ni  iitrals,  however,  may  do  in  this  rcsp<'ct  does  not  arise  from  any  right 
■Ujicli  iiiipoM-s  on  them  the  oldigatiou  of  maintaining  a  more  special  surveillance  over 
;::rirsiil>jtMts  during  war  than  tliey  arc  in  the  habit  of  doing  during  peace:  nor  to  ex- 

•  ni.v  a  more  extensive  insj>ection  ov(>r  the  legality  of  their  conduct  toward  belliger- 
"iit;*  than  that  which  is  jirescribed  bylaw.  In  even  alhiwing  them  to  act  entirely  a.-. 
liifV choose,  they  in  no  manner  infringe  the  rights  of  the  belligerents,  provided  they 
ii not  pretend  otherwise  to  ju-otccf  their  contraventions.  JSnt  such  indiflerence  may 
;;i«jiire  IM-Iljgcrents  with  unfavorabh^  o]iinions.  which  it  may  be  as  well  to  i>revcnt, 
'■!»ci;illy  if  it  be  preponderating  jioweis  who  are  at  war. 

■'From  neutral  govenunents  not  being  undi'r  an  obligation  to  obviate  the  abuses  of 
t'ai  ir  Milijects.  it  follows  that  belligerents,  whatever  conde.scension  they  may  have  to 
•xpett  lV.»ni  them  for  that  jmrpose.  cannot  reasonably  rrquire  them  to  extend  their 
::;':i»iire.s  iii-yoiid  what  is  in  jirai-tice  in  these  same  neutral  couiilries  for  jireventing 
iraiiils  ln'ing  committed  on  their  own  customs,  and  for  checking  the  other  deceitful 
t  Miirivances  for  <vading  i»ayment  of  the  revenues  of  tin:  state.  The  maximum  of  pre- 
'.liitiiiii,  in  this  case,  is  to  maintain  and  enforce  the  oliservance  of  neutrality  in  vessels 

!"!iargoes  with  the  same  diligence  and  exactness  as  are  exercised  in  iiii|niries  and 
'itier  iMtMcedings  relative  to  taxes,  or  inijiosts  ami  customs,  lie  who  does  as  much  to 
iTevciit  a  wrong  meditated  against  another  as  he  iloes  for  !iis  own  protection,  satislies 
'vcryjii^t  an«l  rea.sonable  expectation  on  the  jiart  of  that  other.  I'erhaps.  however. 
umif  might  be  done,  if  it  were  wished,  comjiletely  to  attain  the  objfct.  In  time  of 
war»i>wial  instructions  might  be  ordered ;  tribunals  of  in<|uiry  might  be  established 
■i;;uiiist  tlif  frauds  of  merchants  and  ship-owners,  and  more  rigor  might  be  shown  in 
'III- pnnisluiient  of  their  delim|uencies.  But  tlii»  cannot  be  demanded  on  the  one  side. 
Hid.  on  the  other,  it  might  be  dillicult  to  grant  it,  because  there  might  result  from  it 
"•ii>einn'iices  inconsistent  with  the  general  spirit  of  the  prohibitory  laws  of  the  state. 
At  jpiist.  this  care  must  be  left  ti»  the  neutral  governments,  to  whom  alone  it  belongs 
tojmljfp  what  it  may  be  j)roper  for  them  to  do  with  reference  to  the  circumstances  of 
■  the  war." 


% 


m 


s 


\2l\ 


*PART   III. 


PRECEDENTS  APPEALED  TO  BY  THE  UiNITED  STATES. 


Ill 


111  aid  of  its  view  of  nontral  duties  and   liabilities,  the  ^ovoriiiiicni 
of  tlie  United  States  has  appealed  to  several  ineer'  iitsn 
i».,.w  JO  hy  th.  corded  in  history.     These  are — 
""  '""""  1.  A  correspondenee  which  passed  between  the  ;;o\('ni 

rnents  of  Spain  and  Sweden,  in  LSLM,  relative  to  a  sale  of  certain  Swedish 
vessels  of  w  ar,  which  the  Si)anish  govermuent  suspected  of  haviii}-  Ikch 
bought  for  the  service  of  Mexico. 

2.  The  correspondence  between  the  liritish  minister  and  the  CJovcin 
nient  of  the  United  States,  in  17t>.''.,  respecting  the  depredations  piiu 
ticed  ou  British  conmierce  by  privateers  under  the  French  Hag,  litttd 
out  in  American  ports ;  the  measures  adopted  in  consequence  by  \\w 
tloverument  of  the  United  States;  and  the  treaty  of  li)th  Novenilioi. 
179 1. 

.J.  The  complaints  and  claims  urged  by  Si)aiu  and  Portugal  against 
the  United  States,  ou  account  of  like  depredations  oii  the  subjects  iiiid 
shipping  of  those  two  powers,  by  privateers  titted  out  within  the  Uiiiteil 
States;  and  the  subse<iuent  treaty  with  Spain  of  22d  February,  1H19. 

Some  of  these  transactions  have  been  so  insuflieiently  presented  in 
the  Case  of  the  United  States  that  it  becomes  necessary  to  recall  tlu'iii, 
so  far  as  may  be  necessarj'  to  set  the  facts  in  their  true  light.  It  will 
then  be  seen  that,  far  from  lending  any  support  to  the  daims  of  the 
United  States,  they,  on  the  contrary,  militate  against  those  claims. 

It  will  be  necessary,  also,  since  the  Government  of  the  United  Statis 
has  invoked  against  Great  liritain  the  history  of  American  neutrality, 
to  make  some  additions  to  a  narrative  which  would  otherwise  be  very 
imperfect. 

1.  Case  of  the  Swedish  siiii's.' 


This  affair  calls  for  scarcely  any  remark  on  the  part  of  Great  Uiitaiii. 
n-  o!  th.  sv.j.  It  was  a  sale,  by  a  neutral  government,  of  a  ship  of  the  lint' 
''''""  "■-'  and  two  frigates ;  and  there  was  reason  to  suspect  that tlio 
trading  linn  who  had  become  the  nominal  purchasers  had  bought  tlieni 
for  the  service  of  the  republic  of  Mexico,  then  at  war  with  Spain.  The 
contract  of  sale  contained  a  clause,  enabling  either  party  to  rescind  it 
on  payment  of  a  stipulated  sum.  The  transaction  was  uncoinplotoil, 
and  still  within  the  power  of  the  Swedish  government.  The  govern 
iiient  of  Spain  remonstrated  warmly,  and  induced  the  ministers  of  other 
powers  resident  at  the  Swedish  court  to  support  its  representations. 


'  The  nairativo  intro«liictMl  into  tlio  Ca.se  of  the  United  States  i.s  taken  from  Ciissv* 
Phases et  Causes CoKhres  dii  J )roit  Maritime,  vol.  ii,  ]>.  102.  There  is  a Victter ai'( oimt, 
containin{j;  the  ollicial  correspoiKh'nce,  (wliich  iswanting  inCnssy,)  in  Martens'sCii'i^f 
C(51ebres  du  Droit  des  Cens,  vol.  v,  jt.  2",".),  ed.  IMCl. 


COUNTER   CASE    OF   GREAT    BRITAIN. 


233 


ovoniiiioiii 


The  p^vcriimont  of  Sweden  iiiHisted  on  its  right  to  complete  the  sale. 
At  tlie  end  of  fonr  months,  after  mueh  correspondence,  the  contract  was 
lesciiided  m  the  reqnestof  the  purchasers,  who  aUeged  that  the  vessels 
had  been  detained  till  too  late  in  the  year  by  reason  of  the  recall  of  cer- 
laiii  otlicers  am!  seamen  of  the  Swedisli  navy,  who  had  previously  obtained 
leave  to  enter  the  merchant  service,  and  were  to  be  employed  on  board 
lit' tlit'iii.  The  stipulated  ]>ayment  was  excusetl;  and  the  Swedish  gov- 
iTiimneiit  undertook  to  re  imburse  the  imrchasers  for  money  laid  out  on 
tlio  repair  and  ecpiipment  of  the  ships. 

Tiiattho  government  of  Sweden  was  riyhtin  not  completing  the  sale, 
lifter  circumstances  of  suspicion  had  been  broii^h*^  to  its  knowletlge  by 
S|min,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  It  has  always  been  conceded  that  a  sale 
li\  a  neutral  government  to  a  belligerent,  directly  or  indirectly,  of  arms 
(ir  munitions  of  war,  or  ships  of  war,  stands  on  gv«nind  <piite  ditVerent 
troin  the  mere  forbearance  or  timission  to  prohibit  such  transacitions  on 
the  part  of  private  individuals  who  are  its  subjects.  In  the  latter  case 
no  duty  is  violated.  But  a  government  which  sells  or  furnishes  arms, 
i;iv<!Sor  lends  money,  to  a  belligerent,  becomes  to  that  extent  a  partici- 
pant in  the  war.' 
•l')\  *  In  the  case  of  the  Anglo  Chinese  flotilla,  which  has  been  already 
stated  to  the  arbitrators,  it  will  have  been  seen  that,  under  some- 
what siniiiur  circumstances,  Her  liritannic  ]\l:»jesty's  g(»vernnient  did  not 
hesitate  to  do  far  more  than  the  governnu'Ut  of  Sweden.  The  ditVerences 
are  that  the  vessels  of  the  flotilla  had  not  been  the  property  of  the  British 
government,  and  had  only  been  oHicered  and  manned  by  its  permission; 
that  no  circumstances  of  suspicion  had  been  suggested  to  the  govern- 
iiieut,  but  merely  an  apprehended  possibility;  that  Great  Britain  acted 
immediately,  without  any  correspondence  or  delay ;  and  that  the  sacri- 
lite  she  undertook  to  make  amounted,  not,  as  in  the  Swedish  case,  to 
about  (;(>,()00  francs,  but  to  above  2,500,{)U().'' 

Great  Bi'tain  has  certainly  nothing  to  fear  from  this  comparison. 

The  piTcl'ise  by  Her  Majesty's  government,  at  the  price  of  £220,000, 
of  the  two  iron-clads  seizetl  in  1803,  has  been  mentioned  in  the  British 
Case,  and  it  has  been  stated  (as  the  fact  is)  that  in  agreeing  to  this  pur- 
chase the  government  was  mainly  actuated  by  anxiety  to  prevent  by 
any  means  in  its  power,  however  costly,  vessels  of  so  formidable  a  char- 
acter, constructed  in  a  British  port,  from  passing,  directly  or  indirectly, 
into  tlui  hands  of  a  belligerent.-' 

The  case  of  the  old  dispatch-boat  Victor,  sold  out  of  I  fer  ^lajesty's  nuvy 
in  18(>.'j,  will  be  hereafter  referred  to.'  There  were  in  that  case  no  cir- 
I'umstances  to  excite  suspicion,  and  no  reinesentation  was  made  by  the 
minister  of  the  LTnited  States  to  1  ler  Majesty's  government.  When  it  was 
iliscovered,  however,  that  this  vessel  had  passed  into  the  hands  of  a  bel- 
li;;erent,  and  that  endeavors  had  been  made  to  lit  her  out  as  a  cruiser, 
orders  were  immediately  given  that  no  more  ships  should  be  sold  out  of 
tile  navy  during  the  continuance  of  the  war.  This  decision  was  followed 
in  tiie  case  of  two  vessels,  (the  Keymird  and  Alacrity,)  for  which  an  ad- 
vantageous offer  was  made  to  the  admiralty  in  J)ecember,  180;>,  and 
which  it  was  desirable  to  dispose  of.  "  It  would  be  better,"  Earl  Bussell 
wrote,  "at  the  present  time  not  to  sell  any  vessels  to  private  firms,  as  it 

'  See  HoflFter,  cited  below,  p.  145.  This  (listiiictioii  is*  iceoj^iiiztMl  by  all  writers.  There 
isrcitsoii  to  believe,  liowevcr,  from  fiuts  wliieh  huvo  bccoiui!  notorious,  thiit  it  w.as  over- 
looivcd  by  the  American  Gcvernment  durinj;  the  late  war  between  France  and  Germany. 


'('use  of  Great  Britain,  p.  47. 


Ibi.l.,  p.  44. 


Infra,  p.  !•>.>. 


I 


I 


234 


mi  i 


I 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


is  impossible  to  obtjiin  any  sufficient  assurance  in  regard  to  wliat  nii^'lit 
be  done  with  vessels  when  sold  out  of  the  navy."' 

2.  Violations  op  American  neutrality  in  1793  and  1704. 

In  the  year  179.3  the  neutrality  of  the  United  States  was  infringed,  not 

only  by  captures,  within  their  teintorial  waters,  of  Jiritish 

An;pr,,''„'',!:'"tr,i4"y  vcssels  bv  hostile  armed  ships,  but  bj'  rei)eated  and  success- 

ful  attempts  to  fit  out  privateers  tor  cruising,  under  the  Freiich 

flag,  against  Great  Britain,  then  at  peace  with  the  United  States  and  at 

war  with  France. 

It  must  be  here  observed  that  the  example  of  this  mode  of  carrying  on 
maritime  war  had  been  set  by  the  United  States  themselves.  The  agents 
who  were  sent  to  Fiance  in  177G  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  for  the  United 
Colonies  the  aid  and  support  of  that  power  in  their  struggle  for  indc 
l)endence,  su(^ceeded  in  procuring  and  arming  many  privateers,  wliidi 
they  disi)atched  from  J^^rench  jwits,  with  orders  to  cruise  against  (irear 
Britain,  ami  from  which  Jhitish  comftierce  suftered  vseverely. 

It  was  natural  to  expect  that  when,  in  Februa  y,  1793,  the  F'rencli  lve)»nli 
lie  declared  war  against  Great  Brit;  'n,  France  in  her  turn  should  try  td 
imitate  and  jnofit  by  that  example.  On  the  8th  of  April,  1793,  a  French 
envoy  arrived  at  Charleston;  he  immediately  proceeded  to  fit  out  privu 
teers,  and  four  were  fitted  out,  armed,  manned,  and  commissioned  witliiii 
American  jurisdiction  before  tlie  end  of  the  month.  These  acts  weiv 
open  and  undisguised.  Houses  of  rendezvous  were  opened  at  Charleston 
for  collecting  crews,  the  vessels  were  suffered  to  pass  the  fort  under  ;i 
written  ]>erinission  from  the  governor  of  South  Carolina,  and  there  \va> 
reasonable  ground  to  believe  that,  though  nominally  owned  by  Fren(!li 
men,  they  were  really  the  property  of  Aineri(!an  citizens.  These  vessels 
afterward  brought  in  ]>rizes,  which  were  condemned  by  pretended  ini/.i' 
courts,  jield  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States. 

Applying  to  the  United  States  the  stringent  rule  whiidi  that  ]>o\v»'i  imw 
seeks  to  api>ly  to  Great  P»ritain,the  Britisli  govenuuent  might  undouht 
odly  liave  insisted  that  these  were  violations  f  neutrality  whi<'l)  tin 
Ameriican  Government  was  bound  to  prevent ;  that  no  imi)erfections  in  it> 
municipal  law  or  executive  organization  could  be  pleade<l  in  itsilefense: 
and  that  the  United  States  were  liable;  for  all  tiie  injuries  whicli  tlic 
failure  to  jjievent  ti.em  might  occasion  to  (Jreat  I»iitain. 

Ulie  British  minister,  however,  limited  himself  to  the  request  that  tin 
American  Govi'inment  would  "•pursue  su(di  measures  as  to  its  wisdom 
may  a])peartlie  best  calrulated  for  repressing  suchi)racTices  in  future,  iim! 
for  rest(?i'ing  to  their  rightful  owners  aufi  lajtiitren  which  these  parlinilnr 
prirnteers  luat/  uf tempt  to  hrtiip  into  the  portx  of  the  United  States."' 
I '_'(»]  *  In  the  month  of  May,  one  of  tlie  ])rivateers  unlawfully  littti! 

oMl  at  <  'linrh'ston,  (the  ( 'itoyeii  ilent't,)  came  into  the  port  of  Diil 
adt'l)diia,  wlii<di  was  the  seat  of  the  (iovernnient  of  tli«'  Unite<l  States, 
bringing  a  jui/.e.  The  Citoyen  Genrt  was  not  seized  or  detaified  by  tin 
(ioxernment  of  the  Iniied  States. 

Al'li'r  some  correspondence  with  the  I'rench  envoy,  Mr,  Jeftbvsdii. 
then  Secretary  of  State,  intbrmcd  him  on  the  ."ith  .June,  1793.  that,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  l*resident,  ''tiie  arming  and  e(|ui|)i>ing  vessels  in  tlic 


Appendix  lo  llritinli  ('asc,  vol.  v,  p.  20t. 


*  Ibid.,  p.  ill. 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    GREAT    BRITAI! 


235 


norts  of  tlie  iriiited  States  to  cruise  againr»t  iiiJtions  with  which  they 
were  at  peace  was  iucompatibl*^.  with  the  teiritonal  sovereignty  of  the 
United  States ;  that  it  made  tliom  instrumental  to  the  annoyance  of 
ihovse  nations,  and  thereby  tended  to  compromise  their  pooi-e ;  and  that 
he  tbonght  it  necessary,  as  an  evidence  of  good  faith  to  them,  as  well  as 
a  proper  reparation  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  coiujirj-,  that  the  armed 
vessels  of  tins  descrii>tion  should" — not  be  detaine<l  in,  but — "depart 
from  the  ports  of  the  United  States."' 

The  Jhitish  minister  was  ow  the  same  day  informed  that  "th  =  moment 
it  was  known,  the  most  energetic  orders  were  sent  to  every  State  and 
[lort  in  the  Union,  to  prevent  a  repetition  of  the  accident,''  and  that  per- 
sons accused  of  being  participators  in  tin  act  had  been  committed  for 
trial.    The  restitution  of  the  prizes  was  refused : 

Tli(>  piin(it)!il  Jijjpnts  in  tliis  traiisavtioii  were  Ereiieli  citizens.  Hein;;  within  the 
'  iiitcii  i'tiites  at  the  moment  a  war  broke  ont  between  tlieir  own  anil  another  conntry, 
;lu  V  lift*  rmined  to  s<>  '"f*»  •'**  «h>fense;  they  pnrcliase,  arm,  antl  eijuip  a  vessel  with 
iiieir  <>>vi'  money,  man  it  themdelvi-s,  recei\  e  a  lejjniar  commission  from  their  nation, 
(kjiart  out  of  the  I'nited  States,  and  tlien  commence  liostilities  by  eai>tnrinjj  a  vessel. 
If  niult'r  these  circnmstanees  the  commission  of  the  captors  was  valid,  the  itrojierty. 
iKConlinjj  to  the  laws  of  war,  was  by  the  cajttnre  transferred  to  them,  and  it  would  be 
;iii  iiy;;;! ission  on  their  nation  for  the  I  iiited  States  to  rescue  if  from  them,  whether  on 
i!it'  liij;h  seas  or  on  comin;f  into  their  }»orts.  If  the  «'onimissioii  w;is  not  valid,  and  con- 
^■•|iifiitly  the  itroi>erty  not  transfernMl  by  the  laws  of  war  tr»  the  captors,  then  the  vase 
wonid  have  hOt  n  cojrnizable  in  our  courts  of  ailmirtlty,  uwC  thi^  owners  mi^ht  have 
;;iint'  thither  for  redress.  S(»  that  on  neither  sn)»posit.  ni  would  the  (;xeoutive  bo  jnsti- 
iiiilile  iu  interposinjr.- 

Tlie  American  Government  thus  refu  ed  to  take  any  measures  eveu 
liirthe  restitution  of  ])ri/.es  iu^tually  brought  into  tlieir  i)orts  by  priva- 
teers e(piipi)ed  and  commissione«l  therein.  The  acts  coniplaine<l  of,  it 
\viisad<led,  could  not  be  imputed  to  the  (ioverament,  wliich  could  not 
iiiive  known,  and  therefore  conld  not  have  prevented  them. 

The  Ihitish  minister,  in  reply,  (7th  June,  1703,)  re]>resented  thrit  th^'sa 
iuts  were  notorious  and  unconcealed,  and  well  known  to  the  local  author- 
ities, lie  exi>ressed  his  concern  at  the  de;;ision  at  which  the  Govern- 
iiieiit  had  arrivetl,  and  added: 

I'ltr  all  these  reasons,  notwithstandiu;;  the  defeniice  which  he  shall  ever  preser^■e  for 
t!if  sentiments  id"  this  (JoverniuiMd,  the  undcrsi;{ned  conceives  himself  Justified  in  ha\  - 
i  i;;pntfit,iin(Ml  a  <'onlidciu'e  that  the  (iO\ernment  of' the  I'niti'd  States  winild  not  luily 
iiMii'  ri']in'sscd  this  insult  olVered  to  its  sovereijinty,  but  also  that  the  airjfression  on  the 
^llllil'^tN  (if  tiu' '  i'own  of  (iri'.it  Britain  wouhl  have  been  repaired  by  the  ri-stitution  of 
osi'ls  thus  captured.' 

At  the  «late  of  .Mr.  flelVerson's  letter,  and  for  a  cojisiderable  time 
atter\v;ir<l,  it  was  a  <lispute<i  ([uestioii  wliethcr  the  courts  of  the  United 
States  had  Jurisdiction  to  impiire  into  cantuies  made  under  the  circum- 
stiiiiecs  above  nieulioned,  or  to  order  restitution;  an<l  this  <|ue.stion  re- 
iiiaiiicil  inisettletl  until  th(>  Jurisdiction  was  atlirmed  ]>y  a  Judgment  of 
tlie  Siipreim'  Coint,  tlelivered  on  the  IStli  Feldiuiry,  170I.  Owners  of 
vessels  unlawfully  eupttired  were  in  the  mean  time  debarred  from  any 
ledrcss;  .iiul  to  refuse  restitution,  unle.>s  ihrongli  the  mediifi  of  the 
nunts,  Wiis  to  refuse  it  altogether. 

Alti-r  tlii.s  a  vessel  was  titted  out  and  armed  as  a  l'"n'iicli  ])rivateer  in 
Hie  port  of  rhiladelphia  itself,  under  the  nanu»  of  the  Little  Demociat. 
ilie  (ioveiiwin'ut  did  lujt  j;ei/.eor  r.<'tain  her;  it  relied  on  an  expectation 
tbat  the  FriMicli  envoy  wouhl  not  i)ermit  her  to  sail.  She  sailed,  h<»w- 
ever,  iiixl  engaged  in  depredatitMis  on  Jbitish  <'ommerce. 

Kiliori  (if  the  Neiiliiilif v  Law  (dmnii»iiiiicis,  ji.   !'.•;   Appendix  tolbifish  Ca»e, 

\"!.  ill. 
■Ali|i.'U''.iN,  to  J'.rilisli  Case,  vol.  v,  p.  '21'. 
Ji:'!  ,  p.  -ill. 


•.  i 


9 


I,  -ii      ' 


m  ■ 


n 


236 


TREATY  OF    WAHIIINGTON. 


On  the  4tli  August,  1793,  circular  iustructions  wore  sent  to  the  col- 
lectors of  customs  witbiu  the  Uuited  States,  intended,  though  not  ex 
clusively  intended,  to  i)rovide  against  violations  of  neutrality.  Accord. 
ing  to  these  instructions,  vessels  originally  lifted  out  by  either  beiligorem 
in  ports  of  the  United  States  were  not  thenceforth  to  have  asyliun  in 
any  district  of  the  United  States.  Any  vessel  contravening  the  riiU's 
laid  down  was  to  be  refused  a  clearance  until  she  should  have  foinplicil 
Avith  what  the  governor  of  the  State  might  decide  in  reference  to  lui, 
Care,  however,  was  to  l»e  taken  in  this  not  necessarily  or  unreasonably 
to  embarrass  trade  or  vex  any  of  the  parties  concerned.  In  order  to 
guard  against  contraventions,  the  condition  as  to  military  eciuipnu'iitoi 
every  vessel  arriving  in  a  port  of  the  United  States  was  to  be  asccr 

tained  by  aciMirate  survey  unuleon  her  arrival  and  again  belorelun 
[21]      dei)arture  ;  but  no  attempt  was  to  bo  nuide  to  inspect  "any  *ves 

sel  of  war  in  the  immediate  service  of  the  government  of  ;i 
foreign  nation.''  A  schedule  of  rules  was  appended  to  these  instruc 
tions;  and  it  is  material  to  observe  what  tl\ese  rules  permitted  and  wha! 
they  prohibited  in  the  ports  of  the  United  States,  disregarding  only 
some  specific  limitations  which  hnd  reference  to  treaties  then  existing; 
between  the  United  State.*  and  France.     They  permitted — 

1.  Equipujents  of  njerchaut  ve.ssels  by  either  belligerent,  ''puie  y  lor 
the  accommodation  of  them  as  such." 

2.  Equipments  of  vessels  of  war  in  the  innnediate  service  of  the  jjov 
ernment  of  either  belligerent,  which,  if  done  to  other  vessels,  would  lie 
of  a  doubtful  nature,  as  api)licable  either  to  i-ommerce  or  war. 

3.  E<iuipments  of  a  like  nature  done  to  vessels  titted  for  mercliandist' 
and  war,  whether  with  or  without  commissions. 

4.  They  permitted  also  armed  vessels  of  either  belligerent,  wliicli 
should  not  have  infringed  any  of  its  rules,  to  "engage  or  enlist  tlieii 
own  subjects  or  citizens,  not  being  inhabitants  of  the  United  State.C 

They  prohibited  "equipments  of  vessels  in  the  ports  of  the  Uniteil 
States  which  are  of  a  nature  solely  adapted  for  war."' 

Any  kind  of  Cipiipment,  therefore,  which  might  be  applicable  eitlKi 
to  war  or  to  commerce,  was  declare«l  lawful,  whether  done  to  a  vosx-l 
titted  for  war  and  eoninu'rce.  or  to  a  vessel  actually  commissioned  ;'.*<  a 
public  shij)  of  war.  The  oidy  fpu*stion  was  as  to  the  nature  of  ilif 
equii»ment.  Jf  it  was  of  such  a  ciiaracter  as  to  be  applicable  solely  ami 
exclusively  to  war,  it  was  forbidden  :  if  not,  it  was  not  forbidden. 

These  rules  have  always  been  referretl  to  with  approval  and  re.siuur 
by  American  writers  on  international  law. 

Notwithstanding  the  instructions,  privateers  continued  to  be  littiil 
out  in  American  ]>orts,  and  ]uivateers  which  had  been  previously  tittiil 
out  appear  to  have  bet'U  sntl'ered  to  enter,  relit,  and  depart  unniolestod. 
Thus,  on  tlu'  L'Mtli  December,  17!».!,  the  IJritish  ministei,  .Mr.  llaninioml. 
wrote  to  ,Mr.  JetVerson  : 

Tilt'  (l.iiijrci'  to  l>f  apinclMMKlfd  I'ldiii  tliisc  lii^t-mciitioiii'il  vi'sscLs  ^niviitt'i'is  ill<';;iill,v 
(ittfd  out  ill  ports  of  tin-  I'liitrd  Statis)  still  ooiitiiiiu's  to  v\\st  to  !i  viTy  aliiriiiin- 
<li'<;rt't' ;  since,  iiotwitlistatiiliii^;'  tiic  iciifatctl  assmaiii'i-s  I  liavi;  rccoivctl  iVoiii  lli'' 
l-'ftli'ral  (io\crmiH'iit  of  its  dt-tt'iiiiiiiation  to  rxcliulc  tliosc  jtrivatci'i's  from  any  I'liUi'.v 
asylnni  in  its  |iorts,  ami  tin-  sini'ciity  of  its  drsin-  to  enforce  this  detenninatioii.  I  li:i^'' 
reasini  to  inter  that,  in  other  i|uarters,  iiieans  have  lieeii  snceessfnlly  devised  eillifi  '" 
elude  its  vij;ilance.  (U'  to  reinier  imjiatory  its  injunctions.  This  inferiMiee  arises  Imii! 
the  information  I  have  recei\ed — that  tin'  (tiivateer  Le  C'itoyeii  (Jeiiet,  fitted  i>ut  al 
<'harleston,  was.  on  the  vJIst  of  Anyiist,  iteniiitted  to  return  to  the  port  of  I'liiladi'lpiiiii 
for  tlie  second  time,  to  remain  there  stnne  days,  and  then  to  procet>d  to  sea  for  tli<'  p"'- 

'  Api)endi\'  to  Hritish  Case.  vo!.  v,  pp.  W.\  *270. 


COUXTKR    CASE    OF    GUEAT    BRITAIN. 


237 


.,11^,  (if  coniUKMicinj;  now  deprtMlutioiis,  which,  ns  it  aiipear.s  from  thf  i>nlilio  prints, 
,1,,,  j^iiow  i)r«8t'cntiiifj  in  th«  adjai-ont  «eas;  tliat  Lc  Petit  Democrat,  and  La  Carmag- 
nole botli  fitted  out  in  the  Delaware,  were  permitted  to  j-nter  the  port  of  New  York, 
and  to  coiitinne  therein  iinnioh-Hted  dnriiif;  a  great  i)art  of  the  mouths  of  August,  Sep- 
tember, and  October  last;  that  the  hitter  vessel  is  still  in  that  in)rt,  and  that  the 
I'oriiipr.  having  sailed  from  thence  in  company  with  the  French  lieet.  under  tli<^  ehargo 
lit  Atliiiii'il  S(!rcy,  and  having  siiparated  from  it  at  sea,  ])roc<!eded  tirst  to  Hostou,  au«l 
alierward  returned  for  a  second  time  to  New  York,  wheieiu  she  at  prtiseut  renuiins.' 

On  the  Oth  November,  1794,  he  wrote  to  Lord  (Irenville: 

III  ('(infomiity  to  the  intention  exitresscd  in  my  disi)at(h  No.  M,  I  have  now  the 
Imiior  of  transmitting  to  y<iur  lordship  a  li.nt,  eom]iiled  from  returns  sent  to  me  l»y  His 
.Majesty's  consuls,  of  such  British  vessels  as  have  Ixsen  lirouglit  as  prizes  into  j)orts  of 
ihc  I'liitcd  States,  since  the  lommeiicement  of  the  jircseut  hostilities  t(»  the  Ix^ginning  of 
till' montli  of  August.  On  this  list  it  is  i)ropcr  lor  me  to  ri'uuirk,  that  tin;  vahut  of  ii 
miisiiU'rahle  proportion  of  the  British  vessels  captured,  anil  of  their  cargo(.'s,  is  omitted 
Hi  the  consular  rt<tnrus;  that  of  those  of  which  the  value  is  nu-ntioned,  though  it  he 
iimth  underrated,  the  auKMint  is  jCiy'v^i'lB  sterling ;  an<l  that  of  seventy-live  British 
mizes,  forty-si.v  were  made  hy  privatecirs  titted  out  in  ports  <)f  the  Unite<l  .States. 

Tiu  ficpredatictns  of  these  last-mentioned  vessels,  which  seeuu-d  to  have  Ih'cu  iuKoUHs 
iiuiisurc  suspended  by  the  apjiearancc  of  a  British  naval  fon^e  in  these  seas,  have,  by 
ivct'iit  accounts  from  C'harleston,  n^comnienced.  I  likewise  learn  from  Baltimore  that 
>i  veral  v<!sscls  are  now  arming  in  that  port,  for  the  |)nri»o.se  of  j»rocecding  to  i'ort  de 
r.iix,  in  Saint  Domingo,  or  to  (Jiiadaloupe,  and  of  there  procuring  French  I'ommissions. 
liiuiicli,  by  an  act  i)assed  in  the  last  session  of  Congress,  this  be  a  punishable  otfeiiso, 
ilif  (lillicnlty  of  obtaining  legal  jtroof  of  the  intention  of  the  ))ersons  arming  siu-h 
vissiIm  is  a  sufWcient  objection  to  the  institution  of  any  Judicial  proceeilings  thereon  ; 
and  it  is  useless  to  address  any  com]iiaints  upon  subjects  of  this  nature  to  tlie  General 
(Hivcnuncnt,  since  tlie  investigation  of  them  is  commonly  committed  to  the  governors 
III' till'  respective  States,  of  whom  a  great  majority  is  so  hostile  to  (ircat  Britain  as 
ifiiilily  to  connive  at  measures  the  execution  of  which  may  be  injurious  to  her  iu- 
ti'rests.-' 

The  l>ritisli  viee-coii.sul  at  Charleston  wrote  as  follow.s,  on   tlie  L'Sth 

November,  j71U,  to  the  consul,  (who  was  then  absent  on  leave:) 

['2H]  *  Notwithstanding  the  laws  of  the  United  States  are  so  guarded  against  any 
hreach  of  neutrality,  the  French  here  evade  them,  and  arm  as  uuiny  privateers 
IS  over.  Yesterday  I  acquainted  the  collector  of  the  Federal  customs  in  this  jtort,  who 
iMliivctcd  l»y  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  inspect  all  vessels  in  this  place,  and 
Ml' that  none  of  them  in  any  way  whatever  commit  a  breach  of  the  laws — 

That  the  brig('ygm4,  fitted  for  war  in  this  harbor,  but  afterward  permitted  to  clear 
iiiit  as  a  merchantman,  having  been  disarmed  and  her  jiorts  nailed  up,  had  her  guns 
>.iit  after  her  in  the  i»riva(eer  L'Ami  <le  la  I'ointe  a  I'etre,  took  fhein  on  board  off  this 
liar,  iiiounted  them,  knocked  out  her  jxM'ts,  ami  i)riMjecded  to  .sea,  felly  eijuipped  as  u 
|iiiviiti'cr. 

Tliat  the  schooner  St.  .Joseph  Sugiui  cleared  for  Fort  an  I'aix  as  a  .*<pani.sli  prize;  had 
1111  "{iiiis  mounted  when  she  droi»ped  down  to  the  jiort,  nor  any  appearance  in  her  hull 
lit  having  been  litted  for  war,  although  her  rigging  had  every  apparent  mark  of  the 
luiviitecr ;  had  lucvioiisly  to  her.  going  o\er  the  bar  her  i|uarter-deik  oil',  port-holes 
I  lit.  anil  guns  mounted. 

That  there  was  a  brigantiue  lifting  nt  Gaillard's  wharf,  which  came  in  fiom  Fort  an 

I'aix,  jiierced  for  twelve  guns,  with  u  high  iiuarter-deck,  the  bulk-head  of  which  was 

Mt  awiiy,  and  beams  laid  level  with  the  main  deck,  which,  from  every  appearance,  is 

uii'iint  til  proceed  in  the  same  niiuim>r  the  above  scliooner  did,  by  cutting  awiiy  the  old 

i|iiarti'r-ili'ck  after  she  drops  down,  and  getting  her  guns  scut  aftei  her. 

Tliat  a  new  jirizi-  schooner,  called  the  Swallow,  vsas  lilting  in  same  manner,  iiiid  ti 
i'mviilciice  sloo]),  with  many  vessels  of  :i  larger  size,  among  which  is  the  old  Delaw  ale 
iiijati'  that  was  sold  after  th(>  jieacc,  and  lilted  for  a  .South  Sea  whaler.  Also,  a  sloop 
lyiiii;  on  the  stream,  with  a  large  i|uaiitity  of  gunpowder  on  boiird,  supposed  to  be  for 
ilii'  |iini)iise  of  supi>lying  the  privateers.'' 

Tlie  Cyfjnet  eleared  for  Port  au  l*aix   with  a  trillinjif  earjio,  tlu'ie  ^cit 
i>  comnii.s.siun,  and  on  her  return  made  .several  prizes,  whieli  she  sent 
into  Charleston,  and  of  whieh  the  local  court  refii.se«l  to  decree;  resiitii 
lion. 

The  dispatt^heH  of  the  liriti.sh  cousuIh  at  ('harleston  and  elsewhere  in 

'  Ai>pendix  to  British  Cas',  vol.  v,  \ ,  'in". 
•Ibid.,  p.  aiMt. 
'Ibid.,  p.  2^4. 


^4   , 


H 


''   .i 


( 
J,    3. 


238 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON. 


1704,  1795,  and  somo  subsequent  years,  repeatedly  refer  to  privateers 
tittin^  out  or  increasing  tbeir  armament  in  ports  of  the  United  States, 
tlie  difficulty  of  obtaining  evidence  against  them,  and  the  absence  ot 
effectual  means  of  repression.  Thus  the  consul  at  New  York,  on  the 
.'JOth  November,  1795,  after  a  complaint  of  a  privateer  (the  Coquette 
fitted  out  in  New  York,  which  had  taken  four  prizes,  writes : 

When  such  vcssisls  are  fiUt'tl  out  in  America  in  a  .secn^t  manner,  it  is  difticiilt  to  iinj. 
iMirt'  proof  against  tlieni,  an<l  I  appreliend  tlie  law  jiroiiiltitinjj  the  prartiec^  is  not  adi 
<inate  to  the  purpose,  nor  is  it  enforced  with  siillicient  activity.' 

And,  on  the  27th  April,  1790,  the  vice-consul  at  Charleston  wrote: 

Inclosed  yon  will,  however,  receive  the  state  of"  them,  (the  proceediiiffs  in  jui/,. 
oanses  Itefore  tin;  Supreme  Court.)  as  handed  uw.  by  His  Majesty's  charf^e  d'alVaiics  in 
I'hiladelphia,  from  wliich  it  would  apjiear  nothiii;^  but  the  ownership  Ikmuj^  in  Aiiiiii- 
can  citiz«!ns  will  cause  a  restoration  of  prizes,  and  that  th(^  law  of  tlie  r)th  .Fane,  IT'Jl. 
passed  in  Conjjress,  as  w<;ll  as  the  general  law  of  nations,  so  far  as  respects  the  aiiiiini;, 
equipping,  augmenting,  or  altering  thi'  ships  of  war  or  i)rivateers  of  any  power  at  win 
in  neutral  ports,  are  entirely  set  asidt^  in  tin;  courts  of  this  country.  Indeed.  Mi. 
Chase,  oiu'.  of  the  I'ederal  Jiulges,  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  citizens  of  tiie  I'nitid 
States  had  a  right  to  build  and  eijuip  ships  of  war  as  an  article  of  trade,  and  to  (li> 
pose  of  them  to  tiither  of  the  belligerent  ])owers  without  any  i>reach  of  their  iiiMitiiil- 
ity,  provided  none  of  those  were  in  any  niaiiucr  concerueil  in  them  after  tlu-y  bicaiin' 
cruisers. - 

It  has  thus  been  seen  that  iirivateors  wen;  fitted  out,  armed,  and  com 
missioned  in  American  ports.     These  privateers  committed  cousideiabic 
depredations  on  IJritish  shippinjn',  and  took  many  [trizcs.     Let  us  now 
.see  what  was  done  as  to  the  restitution  of  the  prizes,  and  compensation 
for  the  injuries  thus  sustained  by  (Ireat  iiritaiu. 

The  final  Judgment  of  the  American  (ioverument  as  to  what  was  rioiit 
to  be  done  in  tliis  nuitter  was  conveyed  in  a  letter  which  Mr.  .h'tt'eisoii 
addres.sed  to  the  Jbitish  minister,  dated  5th  September,  1793.  The  sub- 
stance of  this  letter  was,  that  the  Coverunu'iit  recognized  an  oblij.;ati(iii 
to  restore  prizes  actualli/  hroKf/Itt  into  its  jittrfs  after  the  5th  Jmic,  IT'.io. 
if  cai)tured  by  privateers  which  had  been  unliiwfidly  fitted  out  within 
its  Jurisdiction,  or  to  use  all  the  means  in  its  power  to  do  so.  If,  in  any 
case,  it  had  forborne  or  shouhl  forbear  to  tlo  this,  it  would  hold  itsdt 
bound  to  make  compensation  to  the  owners.'  It  recognized  no  otiiei 
obligation.  We  shall  [)resently  see  how  tiiis  engagement  was  luidci 
stood. 

The  promise  or  engagement  contained  in  this  hotter  was  expressly 
confined  to  prizes  t)roiiglit  in  iifter  the  5th  .lune,  179,'i.  The  line  of  dis- 
tinction thus  drawn,  thougli  intelligible  as  between  the  United  States 
and  l-'nince,  bec.uise  this  was  tiie  date  of  Mr.  .lefi'erson's  proliil»iton 
letter  to  M.  Gent't,  was,  so  tar  as  the  rights  of  (Ireat  IJritain  were  con 
cerned,  purely  arbitrary,  the  prizes  brought  in  before  that  date  bein;;  us 
unlawful,  accor<iing  to  the  law  of  nations,  as  tho.se  bronj;'lit  in 
[1-'9J  alter  it,  ami  the  right  to  restitution  or  <!ompen.sation  being  *|)iv 
ci.sely  the  same.  Tlie  American  (loveriunent,  however,  refu.scd 
to  nuike  either  restitution  or  compensation  for  prizes  brought  in  pre 
vious  to  the  time  at  which  the  resoluti<m  that  they  were  to  be  treated 
as  illegal  was  formed  and  mtule  known  to  the  French  envoy. 

The  IJritish  minister  as  to  this  wrote  as  follows,  on  the  7th  June,  I'Dl. 
to  the  then  Secretary  of  State,  Afr.  I'andolph  : 

From  the  same  paper,  it  Ih  also  evident  that  I  have  never  accuiosced  in  the  propriety 
of  the  dutermimition  of  tliis  (jJovernment  not  to  resttiro  ves'i  .s  captured  previoiitly  to 
the  fith  of  .June,  us  well  for  the  reas<Mis  which  I  have  tlu're  stated,  as  because  1  iiii\> 
never  perfectly  comprehended  the  principles  which  could  legalize  the  j»rizes  antei'- 

'Apitendix  to  British  Case,  vcd.  v.  p.  '292. 
-  Ibid.,  p.  21I4. 
'Ibid.,  p.  255. 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    GREAT   BRITAIN. 


239 


ilcntly  to  that  period,  and  invalidate  thoHe  which  were  made  BiibHe(|nently  to  it.  The 
list  of  those  prizes  annexed  to  the  inenioriul  will  evince  that  (whatever  may  have  been 
(ouet'ivcd  by  some)  their  value  was  not  iuconsiderabh} ;  but  even  if  their  amount  had 
lieeii  1<!NH  considerable,  the  question  in  a  national  point  ot  view  could  not  have  been 
alfcctfil  by  that  circumstance.' 

It  maj',  perhaps,  be  supposed  that  the  owners  of  these  vessels,  tbougU 
they  tli<l  uot  obtain  restitution,  would  be  awarded  compensation  under 
Article  VII  of  the  treaty  of  1791.  But  it  will  presently  be  seen  that 
this  was  refused  to  them. 

The  cases  in  which  the  (lovernment  had  "forborne"  to  make  restitu- 
tion were  those  of  three  iiritish  nierchant-ships  which  had  been  cap- 
tiirtul  by  lU'ivateers  unlawfully  litted  out,  and  brought  by  the  captors 
into  American  ports  after  the  uth  June,  17!K},  but  which  the  tJovern- 
meiit,  from  motives  of  policy,  was  unwilling  to  take  forcibly  out  of  the 
iiiptors*  hands.  Xo  provision  having  been  made  by  Congress  for  the 
louipensation  promised  in  the  case  of  these  three  vessels,  the  owners  of 
these  and  of  a  fourth,  which  was  admitted  to  stand  on  the  same  ground, 
hail  no  other  resource  than  to  carry  their  claims  before  the  commission- 
I  IS  afterward  appointed,  which  they  accordingly  did. 

l>y  tlie  seventh  article  of  the  treaty  of  19th  November,  1794,  after  a 
recital  tliat  certain  Iiritish  subjects  complained  "that,  in  i„.,,-,m,»o(ti,.M..m 
the  course  of  the  war,  they  have  sustained  loss  and  dam-  vTh,', 'AriMr'or  \t 
;ii.'e  Itj  reason  of  the  capture  of  their  vessels  and  merchan-  f'  '"^  "  '"'J' 
ilise,  taken  witiiin  the  limits  and  Jurisdiction  of  the  States  atid  brought 
iito  the  ports  oi  ihe  same,  or  taken  by  vessels  originally  armed  in  ports 
111  tlie  said  States,*'  it  was  agreed  that,  "in  all  such  cases  where  restitu- 
tion should  not  have  been  made  agreeably  to  the  tenor  of  the  letter 
iiom  ,A!r.  .lett'erson  to  Mr.  ITammond,  dated  at  Philadelphia,  September 
"i.  17!>'{,  (a  <H)py  of  which  was  annexed  to  the  treaty,")  the  complaints 
shonld  be  referred  to  commissioners,  who  were  empowered  to  award 
(onipeiisation. 

Various  claims  were  made  before  t!;o  commissioners  so  appointed. 
Three  leading  decisions  pnmounced  by  them  will  be  found  in  the  ap- 
iKiiilix  to  this  Counter  Case.     Hy  these  decisions  it  was  ruled — 

1.  That,  according  to  tlu'  true  construction  of  Article  VIl  of  the 
treaty,  coupled  with  JMr.  .letterson's  letter,  no  claim  could  be  made  on 
iicoouiit  of  a  capture  made  he/ore  flic  ~tth  June,  179.).  Ilenee  compensa- 
tion was  retused  in  the  case  of  a  Uritish  vessel  which  had  been  cap- 
tured on  the  .Sth  i\Iay  by  the  Sans  Culottes,  a  privateer  litted  out  at 
I  liiuleston,  an«l  had  been  openly  brought  by  her  captors  into  the  port 
nt  I'hihidelphia.- 

'1.  Tliat  no  compensation  could  be  claimed  for  captures  made  by  ves- 
-I'ls  ilh'gally  titled  out  within  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Cnited  States  huUsh 
''"<  i>rl:vs  hail  licca  subticquently  broiuiht  into  an  Ahicrican  port.    The  own- 


\|>|irn(lix  til  Ibitisli  ('use,  vol.  \ .  p.  27('>. 

"All  till- ildcnmints  above  (|U()te«l  were  of  the  date  nt'  \'\Y.\,  the  late.st  of  them  of 
Novciiilicr '.J'i.  'I'iiey  were  all  i»iibiie,  and  in  the  hands  of  the  ne^^otiatois  (if  the  pies- 
Mt  treaty.  Tliat  treaty,  which  was  Hi;i;iied  in  Novenibei'.  1T!'I.  makes  the  letter  of 
""litt'iulier,  IT'.Iti,  the  standanl  of  the  enjjayements  of  the  I'nited  States  ni  eases  of  tiiis 
'iiitiire,  and  directs  us,  in  all  cases  where  n'stitution  siiall  not  liave  been  mad<<  a^ree- 
iilily  to  the  tenor  of  that  letter,  to  proceed  as  in  tiie  other  cases  committed  to  us.  'i'iie 
''iiiir  of  that  letter  appears  to  me  to  respect  only  cases  oceurriiiju  after  th«>  .'>tli  .June, 
>ii(l  coiitiiins  no  stipulation  either  of  restitution  or  compensation  in  cases  antei'i<u-  to 
'liiit  date.  The  case  of  the  Fanny,  File,  ivaster,  now  nn<lcr  consideration,  is  of  anterior 
liiti',  and  therefore  is,  in  my  opinion,  '.ot  w  ifhin  the  powers  or  duty  of  this  board  fnr- 
'li'i  to  consider."— Decision  in  the  ca^o  ol  the  lannv,  I'ih,  master.  AjUHMulix  to 
Iiritish  Case,  vol.  v.  p.  31'.>. 


;■:■.(-■! 


I' 


3!^ 


i: 


t 


240 


TRKATY   OF    WASHINGTON. 


era,  therefore,  of  a  vessel  wliich  the  captors  had  destroyed  at  .sea  wire 
entitled  to  no  compensation.' 

3.  That  where  the  prize  had  been  brought  in,  no  coinpensatioii  wuM 
be  chiiined  if  the  claimant  had  not  taken  proceedings  in  a  district  coim 
of  admiralty,  and  proved  Ins  case  there  by  snllicient  testimony,  or  if 
there  had  been  any  negligence  or  any  delay  in  institnting  or  carrviii;' 

on  such  proceedings,  or  in  enforcing  a  Judgment  if  obtaiiied.- 
[30J  *The  real  etlect,  then,  of  the  engagement  entinred  into  by  tho(io\. 

ernment  of  the  Ilniteil  States  as  to  restitution  or  compensation, 
appears  to  have  been  this.  The  owner  of  a  vessel  captured  by  a  slii|, 
which  had  offended  within  American  waters  against  the  prohibitions  of 
the  United  States  Government,  was  at  liberty  to  obtain,  if  he  could,  liy 
proceedings  in  a  court  of  admiralty,  a  decree  for  restitution,  and  tlif 
Government  undertook  in  that  case  either  to  use  all  the  means  in  if> 
power  to  enforce  the  decree  should  it  be  resisted,  or  else  to  indeniiiiiv 
liim  for  the  loss.'    If  lie  could  not  obtain  a  decree,  he  had  no  redrow; 


'  Dticisioii  in  tlie  t-asf^  of  tln'  .laiiinica,  Martin,  master.  Ibid.,  pp.  'Ml  et  neq, 
'  "From  tliin  examination  of  tlie  Icttt-r,  wliicli  i.s  j>[iv«!n  to  ns  for  a  rul«,  it  results  tli;i; 
it  was  tlu!  opinion  of  the  I'rcsidcnt,  therein  expressed,  that  it  was  incnmhent  on  t'ni- 
I'niteil  State.s  to  make  restitntion  of,  or  compenMiition  for,  all  siieh  veHml.i  am!  pioinrty 
belongini;  to  Hritisli  siilijects  as  .slionld  have  In  ii — lirst,  captnred  between  the  (latoiii 
,lnne  .»  and  AufjiiHt  7  within  the  line  of  jnrisdietiomil  jtroteetion  of  the  United  .Stativ 
or  even  on  the  hifjh  seas;  if,  secondly,  Hueh  captured  vessel  and  property  were  liii)iij>lii 
into  tiiu  ports  of  th(!  United  Statt^s ;  and,  thirdly,  ])rovided  that,  in  cases  of  captinv 
on  the  hij^h  seas,  this  responsibility  should  be  limit«;d  to  eai»tnres  made  by  vcssil- 
arined  within  their  ]H>rts;  and,  fourthly,  that  the  obligation  of  conipensatinii  sluinln 
extendi  only  to  captures  nnult^  Itefore  the  7th  August,  in  wliich  the  United  Statt'fi  limi 
conft^ssedly  forborne  to  use  all  the  means  in  tlieir  power  to  procure  restitution ;  ami 
that,  with  resjiect  to  (rases  of  captures  made  under  the  lirst,  second,  and  third  cirLiiiii 
stances  above  enumerated,  but  bnuiglit  in  after  the  7th  Aujjust,  the  President  iiail  dr 
termined  that  all  the  means  in  the  )>o\ver  of  the  United  States  should  be  used  f»r  tiiii: 
restitntion,  and  that  he  thought  that  compensation  would  be  eipially  incuinbiMit  im 
the  United  States  in  such  of  these  cases  (if  any  such  shoultl  at  any  future  time  occur 
where  the  Unitetl  States,  having  decreed  rt^stitntion,  and  the  captors  having  oppnseil 
or  nd'used  to  comply  with  ov  submit  to  such  decret;,  the  United  States  should  foibini 
to  carry  the  saun)  into  ett'ect  by  force. 

"Sncdi  was  the  promise.  In  what  manner  was  that  promise  to  be  carried  iutoctiVct ' 
It  was  not  absolute  to  restore,  by  the  hand  of  powtsr,  in  all  cases  whore  ciiiiipl  iiiii 
should  be  made;  if  it  had  Ikumi  such,  there  would  have  been  no  want  of  eoinplaint-. 
aid  France  herself  would  have  had  a  better  reason  for  niiikiuj;  them  than  any  oih'  i 
party.  No,  tiie  itromise  was  conditional.  Wo  will  restore  in  all  those  cases  of  chim 
])laiiit  where  it  shall  be  established  by  snllicient  testimony  that  the  facts  are  tin 
which  tbrm  the  basis  of  our  promise — that  is,  that  the  property  claimed  bdoiiiis  i" 
liritiRh  subjects;  that  it  was  taken  tntlier  within  the  lim^  of  Jurisdictional  iirott'LiiiMi 
or,  if  on  the  high  seas,  then  by  some  vessel  illegally  armed  in  our  jiorts;  and  that  tlf 
propecty  so  taken  has  been  brought  within  our  ports.  IJy  whom  were  these  facts  i" 
Im  proved?  According  to  c^very  priiK.'Iple  of  reasmi,  Justice,  or  ecpiity,  it  l)('loii;,'s  ii' 
him  who  claims  the  benetit  of  a  promise  to  jirove  that  lie  is  the  person  in  wliosi'  lavoi 
or  umh'r  the  circumstances  in  which  the  promise  was  intended  to  oi»erate  ;  aiiilsini' 
it  is  the  jtarty  promising  redress  who  must  lirst  \ni  c(mviuced  by  testimony  "f  lli 
truths  and  justice  of  the  comidaint  before  the  obligatiim  of  his  promise  can  aiiplyan'. 
bind  him  to  performance  of  the  stipulated  relief,  ho  is,  of  course,  tin;  jirojier  lu'isunt" 
decide  under  what  fmnis,  and  in  what  manner,  the  examination  and  jiroof  of  tlio' 
facts  is  t«)  be  conducted.  Accordingly,  every  civili/.ed  nation  has  establisiied  lawsaii'i 
Judicial  foiins  for  doing  right,  for  redressing  wrongs,  and  for  restoring  to  the  tni' 
owner  properly  which  may  have  been  unjustly  wrested  from  him." — Decision  in  tli' 
case  of  the  I'di/abetli,  Ijoss,  master.    Ap|M'ndix  to  British  case,  vol.  v,  p.  W'i'i. 

' "  It  appears  that  by  the  expression  '  all  the  means  in  their  jtower,"  tliey  meant, liH 
thost^  means  which  the  Constitution  and  laws  had  provided  for  tin*  redress  of  wnm; 
and  force  whenever  it  should  be  rendered  necessary  by  any  act  of  ojipositioii  to  tli' 
ordinary  ccmrse  of  Justice.  That  although  doubts  nntertariued  by  a  part  of  the  Jnilkui 
establishment  of  its  jnrisiliction  in  these  cases  had  placed  them  fm*  a  time  umlci  tli' 
immediatt!  eye  of  the  Kxeciitive  jtower,  yet  to  the  coinplaiiiant  this  produced  miiiii 
)>ortant  change,  since  the  same  examination  and  proof  of  facts  was  reijuired  tovstiiji 
jish  the  justice  of  his  complaint  and  to  guiile  the  decision  of  the  rresideiit,  as  wmiM 


COIXTEK    CASE    OF    (JKKAT    BKITAIN. 


241 


I  tbe  iiiejiiis  used  by  the  Goveruinent  proved  iueft'ectual,  lie  bad  likewise 
no  redri'ss.'  Ho  was  equally  without  redress  if  bis  vessel  bad  been 
plundered  or  destroyed  at  sea  and  not  brought  into  an  American  port. 

II  the  capture  was  made  before  a  certain  date  arbitrarily  fixed,  then, 
iltlioush  the  prize  bad  been  brought  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
I'uited  States,  the  Government  would  do  nothing  to  secure  him  either 
lesritution  or  indemnity. 

This  is  one  of  the  two  precedents  on  which  the  United  States  rely  as 
.stablishing  the  proposition ''that  when  a  neutral  fails  to  use  all  thr 
menus  in  its  power  to  prevent  a  breach  of  the  neutrality  of  its  soil  or 
waters  in  any  of  the  foregoing  respects,  the  neutral  should  make  com 
in'iisatiou  lor  the  injury  resulting  therefrom,"^  and  as  justifying  the 
iliiims  it  now  makes  against  Great  Jh'itain.  AVhat  the  other  is  we 
4iiill  st'C  presently. 

Let  as  now  observe  the  terms  in  which  this  transaction  has  been  rep- 
ivseiited  to  the  arbitrator^  : 

I'lie  (iovt'rniiiciit  of  (SeiiiMiil  Wasliinjjtoii  (Icti'iniiiii'd.  Iiowever,  as  it  liad  lieeii  in- 
.iiiit'd  "f  tln'sn  att*;mpts  at  violatiiifj  tlits  sovi!r(!i«inty  <tt'  tin;  iiiUiMii,  that  it  was  tin- 
iiity  of  till'  I'liifcd  Statt's  not  only  to  iopress  tlioni  in  fiitnio,  but  to  rcstoro  prizes  that 
:i;;ht  lio  ('a])tiir*Ml  )>,v  vitssi-ls  tIniH  iilo;rii||y  tittiMl  ont,  niannc*!,  eipiipptMl,  or  coniiuis- 
•imiicmI  witiiiii  tli(^  waters  of  tiio  rnitfd  Statt-s,  or.  if  uiiahlu  to  n'.storo  them,  thou  to 
iiako  roiiipt'nsation  for  thcin.' 

From  this  examination  it  ai»iH;ars     *     *      tliat  thu  Uiiitoil  States  undertook  to  make 

Miiipiiiwition  for  tiie  injuries  resultinj;'  from  violations  that  had  taken  place  wliere 

they  had  (ailed  to   »!Xi'rt  all  the    in«  ans  in   tlieir  i)o\ver  t(»  prevent  tlioin.     It 

;|]    WHS  siihsei|U(ntly   'ajjireed  betweiMi  tlio  two  oovi-mments  that  in  eases  where 

restitution  of  tlie  prizes  should  ho  impossihh^the  amount  of  the  losses  should  1m- 

iHii'tiiiiied  liy  a  method  similar  to  that  provided  by  the  treaty  of  Washin^^tiMi,  and 

iiitt  ii  money  payment  should  be  made  by  thu  L'nited  States  to  (irout  Kritain  in  lieu 

-t'n'stitiitiou.^ 

TIh!  Iriited  States  are  aware  that  some  eminent  En<^lish  publicists,  writin^i;  on  the 
•il)iiH't  of  the  Alabama  claims,  have  maintaini*d  that  tlie  ol)li<ration  in  such  case  to 
in;iko compensation  W(»uld  not  iu;ccssarily  follow  the  proof  of  th<i  commissiini  of  tlie 
viDtifi;:  but  the  I'luted  States  eonltdently  insist  that  such  a  result  is  entirely  incon- 
-isttiit  willi  the  course  pursued  by  (Jreat  Mritain  ami  the  I'liited  States  <Iurini;  the 
.liiiiiiiistration  of  (ieneral  Washinjj;ton,  when  (ireat  ilritaiu  elaiineil  of  tlio  I'liited 
^tatcs  (■ompeusation  for  losses  sustained  from  the  acts  of  cruistiis  that  had  received 
warlike  additions  in  the  ports  of  the  llnited  States,  and  the  I'nited  States  admitted  the 
ii<tiei>  uf  the  claim  and  paid  the  comjteusation  demanded.' 

Her  Majesty's  government  deems  itself  entitletl  to  ask  whether  these 
111' correct  re[)resentations  of  the  facts  sttited  in  the  foregoing  pages. 

One  of  the  vessels  equipped  and  armed  for  warlike  use  within  the 
rmitory  of  the  United  Stiites  was,  after  leaving  it,  commissioned  as  a 
jiiiblicsiiipof  war  of  the  French  IJepublic,  under  the  name  of  the  Cassias. 
Tlio  siibsetiuent  history  of  the  ship  has  been  often  referred  to  in  argu- 
iiii'iit,  and  may  be  briefly  noticetl  liere. 

The  L'assius  h.ad  sailed  from  the  Delaware  Itiver  in  .January,  1795, 


iiuve  lii-eii  rci|uired  before  the  Jud^jcH.  That  after  the  IHth  February,  17'J4,  the  decision 
•It  the  Sapreine  Court  liail  rcmovc«l  those  doubts  which  had  for  a  tiino  inlluenced  the 
oiiduet  of  sonic  of  the  inferior  courtH.  And  it  does  not  appear  that  after  thatdunision 
'lifip  was  any  delay  on  the  part  of  th»»  inferior  courts  in  renderiu};,  uor  any  opposition 
III  tilt;  ))art  of  the  captors  to  the  execution  of  their  proct^ss  or  decrees,  insomuch  that 
tlu'ic  uxisted  no  occasion  thereafter  to  fullill  the  ultimatum  of  the  i»roiuiHC  by  exerting 
iorif  to  cuuipol  restitution." — The  Elizabeth.     Ibitl.,  p.  ;1'27. 

"It  appears  frtiin  the  lirst  part  of  this  iiii|uiry  that,  in  promising  to  use  all  the  means 
III  their  power  fi>r  the  restitution  of  vessels  captured  after  that  date,  the  1  'nitod  States 
lid  not  undertake  to  make  compensation  in  case  tliosi^  means  should  fail  of  their 
•Hwt."— The  Elizabeth.     Ibid.,  p.  :W7. 

Cmv  of  the  United  State's,  p.  'il'2. 

l'»id..  p.  VMi.  '  Ibid.,  p.  l:tl.  Ibid.,  p.  i:{(i. 

I«!  A— II 


I 


1 1 


•>4-> 


TBKATV    OF    W  ASIIIXOTOX- 


(  nw  ot  ihf-  r»**it 


after  an  onler  to  ««eiz«*  lier  had  l>een  ii^-iiitMl.  avoiiliii*^'  d^t^ 
tioii  partly  by  artifice,  and  partly  l»y  tlin*atenin^  an  arm.. 

resistance  to  tbe  L'nite<l  States  authorities.     She  went  to  Sjtint  J  Utinin-, 

was  there  t'ormally  transferrcl  to  the  French  jrovernnient,  and  tomn]^^. 

sioned   under  the  command  of  an  American  ofti«-er.     She  retuniftl  j; 

August  to  Philadelpliia.     Whih*  she  was  in  that  f»ort  proceiMlin^'s  wt-r^ 

instituted  a;;ainst  licrand  her  commander  by  the  owners  of  an  Aiii«-ii<-;i; 

vessel   which  had  l>een  captureil  by  her  at  sea.  an<l  condeniimi  l.v  ,-. 

French  prize-court.    The  owners  alh';;e4l  that  the  capture  was  ilhiral.  am 

claimed  damaj;»*s.     The  sui^sequent  prrHfcilinjrs  and  corr«*si>i>nd»Mi(«-,(i. 

too  long  for  recital,  and  may  be  read  in  well-known  IkkiIvsJ     It  is  >".tt 

cient  to  mention  : 

1.  That  the  Frr>ncli  minister  laid  claim  to  the  ship  a<  a  pultlic  .oliif. .. 
war,  and  refus«Ml  to  !m-  a  party  t«»  any  pnM'cetlinjffj  in  the  Iwal  court*. .. 
to  admit  in  any  way  their  jurisiliction.  He  refuse<l  alsi>  to  fun.'sli  u\) 
proof  of  her  allege*!  transfer  to  his  government,  or  of  her  character  a> 
a  public  ship.  Ijeyoml  his  own  declaration,  given  to  the  Executive  a*  j 
act  of  courtesy,  that  she  had  l»e<*n  s<»  etimmissionetl  at  a  certain  «lat«-. 

2.  That  the  <lovernmenl  <»f  the  I'nite*!  States,  while  atlirming.  as  a: 
unquestioned  fact,  'which  hail  iN-en  incidentally  proveil  on  the  trial  of 
person  concernt*d  in  ir,)  that  the  C'as>ius  had  lx*en  armetl  and  e4|iit|i[>t^ 
within  the  L'nitetl  States  in  violation  of  their  neutrality,  did  not  claiti 
any  right  to  seize  and  detain  her.  but.  on  the  contrary.  instru«-t<-4{  jr. 
law  otiicer  to  presi-nt  to  the  court  a  "Migg-stion"  (as  it  was  techniiall. 
called)  that,  as  a  public  ship,  she  «»ught  to  be  release<l  as  exempt  frw: 
civil  proceedings,  and  her  commander  dis«-harge<l. 

li.  That,  on  the  n-lcasi-  of  the  ship,  the  Fiviith  minister  was  iiifoniie.; 
by  the  Secretary  of  State  that  she  was  ready  to  Ije  deliveretl  t«'  In- 
order. 

The  French  minister,  however,  who  had  previously  ortlered  her  tol«- 
disarmed,  refus*-*!  to  receive  her.  ami  she  lay  uiiclaime<l  for  two  vear>. 
at  the  end  of  which  she  was  s<.»ld  for  a  tritlingsum  by  order  of  thciJi.v 
eminent,  after  a  prior  ni>titication  to  the  French  consul-general,  wh. 
had  answere<l  that  his  government  had  given  him  no  authority  in  th-^ 
matter. 


I 


3.  Violations  OF  Ameimoax  xeutkvlitv  uikingtiie  war  rAi.MiiE; 
ON  ijv   Spain   and   rouncAL  a«;ainst   tiik  Spanish-Ameijica' 

COLONIES. 

During  this  war  the  |Hirts  of  the  United  States  were  ag-^in  use«l.  an-: 
:i  v,„i. >,.„.-  "'•  :>  ''till  larger  .«-:de,  for  fitting  out  piivateers  against  Da 
hlrmTih. "r?/'.'.'-''  tioiis  with  which  the  Hepiiblic  was  at  |ieace.  The  vessel* 
iCrV,r.'.i''..*mrr  I!I^'  •*^»  tittinl  itut  wen'  numernus.  and  ihcy  ap|>ear  to  have  \<^'. 
^'"•'"' •■""'■""•  for  the  most  pait  ownetl.  as  well  ascumuianded  and  uiaunttl. 
by  citizens  of  the  L'niiwl  Slates.  The  object  of  these  ventures  w.> 
plunder;  the  men  employetl  in  them  were  under  little  or  no  disi-ipliiK- 
or  control  ;  and  they  iyi)iiietime-s  degeiienitetl  into  actual  piracy.  Irnr:. 

which,  iii«lee<l.  they  ilo  not  Mf}a  to  have  been  far  removol.  <': 
[."»-]       iiiDre  than  one  «»c«-asion  the  courts  of  the  l'nite«l  •States  hail  i- 

determine  whether  the  captain  and  crew  of  the  so-calle<!  privaln-: 
liad  been  engaged  in  a  Ihiho ^fide  ^^svtt•is^•  of  liie^'if«  btrUi^  though  iimlKa 
comiiiis.sion  obtaineil  tmm  an  unrecognizeil  government,  or  weiv.  uu«ir: 

'  A  Htateiiipnt  nf  tlie  faet'«  of  thi-'  r^n*^  will  lie  fiNirMl  in  a  note  by  Mr.  Dana  in  t* 
Apitfiulix  to  the  Ca.»e  of  ifie  l'iiit<r«l  Staces.  \oL  vii.  pp.  I'^'V. 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    JiKKAT    IIRITAIN. 


243 


auaiiist  li.i 


:hefoI«»r  of  such  a  coininissi()n,more  robbers  on  tlu"!  hij;li  seas;  and,  more 
rhan  ouvf.  |HMsons  so  tried  were  condemned  to  sntt'er  death  as  pirates.' 

Ke|HMte«l  and  earnest  remonstrances  on  this  subject  were,  dnrinj;  sev- 
eral years,  a<ldressed  to  tlie  (loverninent  of  the  United 
Si.ites  hy  the  ministers  «>f  Spain  an«l  l'ortu<j;al.  Tlie  com-  t«.-.rri.r 'i'.rit.r,i 
phiiiits  of  I*ortn;:al  extended  over  ton r  years,  frotn  l.SKJ  to 
hJi»,  An  abstract  of  them  will  be  found  in  a  dispatch  addresst'd  by 
Earl  Hiissell  to  Mr.  Adams,  ami  dated  .{Oth  Aujrust,  l.S0r».2  The  Portii- 
:)ies»'  minister  was  repeatedly  told,  in  answer,  that  the  (JovernnuMit  of 
:iie  riiiteil  Slates  could  oidy  exercise  the  powers  with  which  it  was  in- 
vtsteil  by  the  law;  ami  he  was  told  that,  beftne  prosecutions  coidd  be 
instituted,  a  list  of  the  persons  charjiC  iblc  should  l»e  furnished,  t»>j>:ether 
T^irli  evidence  to  support  the  char^L^cs.  This  c«M"respondence  has  l)t'eu 
rvtVm-il  t«»,  but  very  ina«rcurat<'ly,  in  the  Case  ot  the  United  States. 
Thus,  a  note  of  the  Sth  .Marcii.  ISIS,  atldressed  by  the  l*ortujruese  miii- 
:srer  to  Mr.  J.  Q.  Adams,  the  Secretary  of  State,  is  nu^ntioned  with  the 
iiilloirin<;  comment:'  '^  The  note  making;  this  complaint  contained 
nt-itlier  priHif  of  the  al!e«;ati«ms  in  the  note  as  to  the  tittiu};  out  of  the 
vesseU  in  the  United  States,  as  to  their  Ihmiij;  manned  with  America. is, 
3'tr  indications  from  which  the  United  States  conhl  have  discoveretl 
:bt»s«*  facts  for  themselves."  The  note  in  question,  w  hich  was  very  short, 
i-iMitained  the  following;  passa;;e :  "An  extract  of  the  documents  that 
isrsivf  these  facts  I  have  the  lionor  of  inclosin<;  in  the  annexed  |)aper. 
Thf  (litcuments  themselves  are  at  your  disposition  when  re(piired."^ 
U.it  Mr.  Adams  did  not  ask  for  the  documents.  He  contented  himself 
auli  answerinjj : 

TheO<iv«-niiiit-iit  «>f  till"  I'liift'tl  !>tat«'.s  having  iisi-d  all  the  lnoall^*  in  its  imwor  to  jnc- 
vr-nt  the  tittiii;;  out  ami  aniiiii;;  ot"  vt-ssels  in  their  ports  to  cruise  a<;;aiiist  any  nation 
vitli  nhoiii  they  are  at  jieaee.  and  havin;^  I'ailht'nlly  carried  inti»  ext-cution  the  laws 
-iac"«-<l  to  |>r«*s«Tve  inviolate  the  neutral  and  pacilic  oliiijjations  of  this  Union,  cannot 
■  '"oi'lt-r  tt»«*lf  lionnd  to  indemnity  in<li\  idnal  t'orei^ners  f.»r  losses  hy  captures,  over 
Tbich  the  l'iiit«"«l  Srates  havt;  neither  control  nor  Jnrisiliction.  For  .such  events  no 
-^jtinn  can.  in  principle,  mir  docs  in  practice,  hold  itself  responsihie.  A  decisiv*!  reason 
:<lhi^  if  there  were  no  other,  is  the  inability  to  provide  a  tribunal  before  which  the 
!*•:»*  cull  lie  pnive^l. . 

The  d<M-iiiiu-nts  to  which  yon  refer  must,  of  course,  be  is  juirtf  statements,  which  in 
:'.>nii-^il  or  in  Bni/il.  as  wi-U  as  in  this  country,  could  only  serve  as  a  foundation  for 
t 'I'Mi-.  ia  il;iMia;5<*s.  or  I'or  tlie  pro>iM-ntion  and  trial  of  the  |)ersons  supposed  to  have 
'"<uuiiti-«l  the  depreilati'ins  ami  oiurai;>-s  alle>;ed  in  them,  t^honid  the  parties  conui 
siihiu  the  jurisilictioa  t»f  tlie  I'liited  States,  there  are  courts  of  admiralty  competent 
■■■-.'(vrtaiii  the  facts  upon  liti<;itio!i  betweiMi  tlieni.  to  piiuisli  the  outra;ies  which  may 
•- 'I'lly  pn»vf«l.  and  to  restore  the- property  to  its  rightful  owners,  should  it  also  be 
'Uiit  within  our  jurisiliction,  and  found,  imioii  judicial  inquiry,  to  have  lieen  taken 
::i'- iuinn»T  represented  liy  your  letter.  I{>  the  universal  laws  of  nations,  the  obli- 
^jtioiexif  iIk'  American  Government  extend  no  further."' 

••The  United  States,*'  wrote  Mr.  Adams  on  the  .{(Uh  September,  1820, 
-had  repre.sM'tl  «*very  intendetl  violation"  of  neutral  duties"  wliich  had 
l«»^ii  Imnijrht  InMiire  their  courts,  awl  stthstantinfeil  btf  tistimony  conform- 
"Wf  t't  principles  recof/nizel  hy  all  trihunals  n/^tiniilar  jnri'ulietion.'''^  They 
aatl  alsij  enacted  more  strin^^eut  laws.     Bit  it  ha>l  lii'en  represented  by 

•  ^Vl•  I'nite*!  .Stat«-H  r«.  Klintock.  '>  Wli -atou,  1 14  ;  United  .States  r<.  Sniit  h,  ibid.,  l.'>:{ ; 
'  iitnl  Slates  r*.  Furlon-;.  ibid..  l*l:  United  .Srates  rt.  Jones,  ;{  Washin^rton's  C.  C, 
^'.•:  aud  the  case  of  the  otlicers  and  crew  of  tlie  Irresistible,  16  Niles's  Kejiister,  '.iSG, 

AppeiHlix  to  British  Case.  vol.  iv,  No.  .">,  ( orrespondence  respecting  the  Shenandoah, 
^i''.    A|i|M-udix  to  Case  of  the  United  .States,  vol.  iii,  pp.  Tm;!  vt  xj-jy. 
'fa.'s.r  of  the  Uiiite<l  .States,  p.  13'J. 
'Ap|«rndix  to  British  Case,  vol.  iii,  p.  14i>. 

Ibid.,  p.  1511. 
'  llMiL.  p.  ly*. 


1 


t-  y 


244 


TKKATV    OF    WASIIIN(JT()N. 


I 


rortiijjjil  that,  in  s|»itc  oftlii'se  iiowly  eiiactt'd  laws,  tlie  acts  coinplaiiii'c, 
oft'oiitiiuiod  t<>  hv  "  both  Irrquont  and  notorious;"  it  was  altirnuMl  that 
till'  otlici'is  of  tlie  (Jovcrnnicnt  were  "  hikewann  ;"  that  notorious  as  tin 
ollenses  were,  itwasdittieult  to  obtain  the  eviilence  which  was  r«'»|uire(l: 
and  the  niultitu(h'  of  persons  interested,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  i»riv;i 
teeriiiff,  interposed  jjreat  obstacles  in  the  way  of  a  i)roseeution.  1d;i 
note  addressed  to  !\lr.  Adams  on  the  L'.'Jd  November,  18l!>,  by  M.  Coiti  ;i 
de  Serra,  the  grievances  of  Portugal  were  recajHtulated  as  follows: 

I  liiiM-  (III-  liuiior  <it'Mii1)iiii(tiii;{  tii  yon  tlii>  t'ollowin;^  fat'ts  iiixl  coiisiilt'riitiiiiw: 

iMirin^  nmiv  tliaii  twoyt-iUH  I  liavd  licoii  olili<rf«l  l»y  iiiy  duty  to  o|(iHist'  the  >\.. 
tfiiiatii-  and  i)i<;aiii/i'd  dfi>r*-datioiis  daily  coniiiiittt'd  on  the  pro)M>i'ty  of  rnrtiisniv 
>nlijtitH  liy  |»-o|df  li\in<r  in  tlu^  I'nitcU  8tat«>8.  and  uitli  sliip.s  litti-d  in  |Mirt>  •! 
[:>:{]  till-  I'nion.  Xo  till'  rnin  of  the  coinnieici-  of  l'oi-tn;;al.  I  do  jnstiet;  *tii,  unil  :iii. 
yrat«'ful  for,  th«!  |)i«Mf«'dinj;s  of  th«'  Kxt'iiitive,  in  ordor  to  pnt  a  stop  i.i  tin  v 
ih'jin-dations,  lint  thi-  I'vil  is  rather  inri«'rtsiii;i.  1  can  prexnt  to  yon.  if  n-iinin  il.  a  Ij.i 
of  lifty  l*ortn;?n«'s«'  ssliips.  aiino.st  all  richly  laden,  some  of  tln-ni  Kasf  Indianuu.  wlii,; 
have  Ih-i-ii  taken  hy  the.se  people  dnriii):;  tli(^  period  of  fnll  peace.  This  is  not  Ihi!  wlm;. 
lo»«  we  have  siistaini'd,  this  list  comprehending;  only  those  captnres  of  wliieh  I  |ia\, 
received  otiicial  eoniplaints.  'I'in*  victims  luive  lieen  many  more,  lusjilcs  \  it)l:iti(iii»( 
territory  liy  landin<;  and  |)!nn<lerin<;  ashore,  uith  shocking;  cinMimstanees. 

One  city  aliMK    on  tills  coast  has  arnu-d  twenty-six  slii|is  which  i)rey  on  oni  vitjilv 
and  a  week  ap>  three  arnu-d  sliijis  of  this  natnre  were  in  that  port  waiting;  for  a  t'^vm 
able  (Hcasion  of  sailing;  for  a  crnise.     Certainly,  the  j»eoi>Ie  who  commit   thesr  i\r»'v«i- 
an-  not  the  I'nited  States,  lint  luivertheless  they  live  in  the  Inited  Statt's.  ami  i  iii).l,.' 
against   ns  the   resonices  which  this  sitnation  allows  them.     It  is  impossililr  to  vit" 
them  oth»rwi>o  than  a  w  ide-exteinled  and  iiowiitnl  triiie  of  inlidels.  worse  .>lill  tli;,i 
tho>«- of  North  Africa.     'I"he  North  Africans  ni.-ike  pri/cs  with  h'a\e  of  tlieii  ^'ovi-r! 
iiient  acenulin;;  to  their  laws  and  after  a  declaration  of  war:  lint  the>c  wor>e  inliiltl- 
of  whom  I  s|if:ik.  make  prizes  from  nations  friendly  to  the  I'nited  States.  ai;iiin>t  tli' 
will  of  the  (iovermncnt  of  the  I  nitcd  States,  and  in  spite  of  the  laws  tif  tin-  I'liit.r 
Stato.     They  are  more  jiowerfnl  than  the  African  iididels,  lici  .inse  tlie  wlioli- cdiist  • 
liiirbary  does  not  jiossess  siuh  a  streiijitli  of  jirivateers.    The,\         nnnn-rons  ami  widi! 
M-attered.  not  oidy  at  sea  for  action,  hnt  ashore  likewise  to  kei  p  their  f^roiind  auain- 
the  obvious  and   plain  sense  of  yonr  laws.  sinc(>  nnist  jienerally.  wln-rever  tlicy  h.n 
bivn  called  to  the  law,  they  have  found  abettors  who  have  helped  them  lo  evade  th 
laws  by  formalities. 

I  shall  not  tire  you  with  the  numerous  instances  of  these  fa<ts,  but   it  may  be  laM 
eonceivtd  how  I  am  heartily  sick  of  receiving  fret|Uent  communications  of  r(iitiij;iii- 
l»nnKTty   stoK-n.   of   delinquents   inconceivably    ac<|Uittcd,    letters    from    roitiij,'Ui- 
men-hants  deeply  injured  in  their  Ibrtnnes.  and  seeinj;  nu-  (as  often   has  Intii  tl 
<'ase>  «pprcss«'d  by  prayers  for  bread  frtim  rortuyuese  sailors,  thrown  pennih'ssoii  tb 
*hun-s  alter  their  ships  had  been  cajitured.' 

In  the  Case  of  the  Unitetl  States,  the  minister  who  writes  tliih 
••arne.'^tly  and  vehemently  is  representeil  as  "attaching  little  or  in 
imi>ortance  to  the  matter.'*-  The  reason  given  is,  that  he  atlds  that  bi 
has  chosen  the  moment  to  make  a  visit  to  Jlra/il.  JUit,  in  the  seiitoiitt* 
•whieii  precede  and  follow,  and  of  which  no  notice  is  taken  in  the  (.'as* 
of  the  United  States,  he  has  explained  why  he  chose  to  leave  his  postal 
that  particular  time,  namely,  that  until,  by  amendment  of  the  law,  oi 
otherwise,  the  proper  means  should  be  found  for  putting  an  end  to  tlii- 
**  monstrous  conspiracy,"  he  found  by  experience  that  complaints  wen 
u.sele?s,  and  should  refrain  from  continuing  to  present  them  without 
l>ositive  orders.' 

Tortugal  asked  (IGtU  July,  1.S20)  for  the  appointment  of  a  joint  com 

'  Ap|K-ndix  to  Kritish  Ca.se,  vol.  iii,  p.  !">.'). 

-t'ajjo  of  the  I'nited  States,  p.  l-lli. 

^  At  p.  Ufi  of  tin-  Ca.se  of  the  IJnited  States,  Marl  l{us.sell  is  accused  of  liavin<;  I'ln 
]HMely  ouiittiHl.  in  his  correH|»ondence  with  Mr.  Adams,  to  notice  the  promises  iiiailf  '' 
the  American  Government,  that  pej-sons  ottendiiiR  ti);ainst  the  Iuwh  hIiouUI  be  jiriw 
fut»Hl.  On  the  «on truly  he  exjtressly  mentioncil  this  promise.  (See  Appendix  tiita~ 
of  the  l'nit<Hl  States,  Vol.  v.  p.  .V». )  Aj^ain.  at  pp.  14"2,  14(>,  lie  is  represented  a^nj' 
pn>\ini:.  assuming,  assentiii<>  to.  all  tin-  arfiuments  which  he  had  sinijdy  rc<oiuitc«l  • 
itaxin;:  l>cen  iuelfectually  r.njed  in  the  former  controxersy  by  riulu^al. 


roiXTKK    CASi:    OF    (iRKAT    MRITAIN. 


245 


:iii**ioii:  liiit  this  was  refused  by  the  United  States.  '•  Tlie  iippoiiit 
lueot  of  ooiiimissiiHier:*,*''  it  was  replied,  '•  to  eonfer  and  a«jree  with  the 
ministers  «)f  Her  Most  Faithful  Majesty  upon  the  suliject  to  whieh  y»»ur 
AU'V  refers,  would  not  be  <'onsistent  eitlier  with  the  Constitution  «»f  the 
I'liited  States  nor  with  any  practice  usual  arnon<;  eivilizetl  nations.  The 
iiulicial  power  of  the  I'liited  Stiites  is,  by  their  Constitution,  vested  in 
their  Supreme  Court,  and  i»i  tribunals  subordinate  to  the  same.  The 
iiil<r(*sof  these  tribunals  are  amenable  to  their  country  by  impeachment, 
mil  if  any  I'ortu^jfiu'se  subject  has  sutVered  wronj;  by  any  act  of  any 
iti/iMi  of  the  L'nited  States  within  their  Jurisdiction,  it  is  iM'fore  these 
libmials  that  the  remedy  is  to  be  soujjht  and  obtained.  For  any  acts 
it' citizens  of  the  J'nited  States  committed  out  of  their  Jurisdiction  and 
itcyoiid  ilieir  control,  the  (luvcrnmeiu  (»f  the  l'nited  States  is  not 
;t'S|utnsible."' 

Ill  ls"»U.  the  proposal  for  a  coiuinission  to  investij;ate  tlu-si-  claims  was 
;.in'\ved  by  l'ortu;;al.     The  Portiij^uese  minister  then  took  notiee  tliat 

iptnres  of  Portujiuese  vessels  by  privateers,  fitted  out  and  cjpiipped  in 
iMirts  of  the  l'nited  States,  had  ccntinued  to  be  matle  down  t«»  the  year 
ISL'S;  tliat  upward  of  sixty  had  been  captured  or  plundered,  and  that 
lie  tittiny:  out  of  tliesi"  piivat«»ers  at  lliltimore  had  been  a  matter  ot 
iiilijic  notoriety.  He  adtlcil.  in  thi'  same  dispaleh.  tlie  follitwiiu'  "itale- 
;iu'iit> : 

Thf  ninlfrsi;^ii'il  \>  ■j,-<  1  ■  ivi-  tn  >•  :i\ ,  .•iinl  lu'  ^iilnnits.  t!i;ii  if  w.i-  lii'-  <lii:y  of  tin?  t'nitftl 

»!atf<  fiovcMiim-iit  to  fsi-vcisc  ii  ic;is(m:il>li'  <l('y,i'ff  of  ilili;;iMiri'  t'l  ju'i-viMit   tlii'-ii-  jtro- 

••:iiii}i'*  "'  ''■•  •■iii/.fii-i.  asid  that,  li:i\  iii<4  fnilrd  to  do  so.  a  Just  i-laiiii  t-xi-ts  on  tlif  jtart 

!  lilt- ;;oviTinnciit  ot"  l'ortu;;al  in  Ix-liall'  of  its  desiioilcil  siilijcct.s.  against   flic  l'nited 

■»:ate.-<.  tor  flu-  auioiint  ol'  losses  sustained  l>y  ri-ason  tlieii-of. 

M.  lie  Fitjaiiii  II'   would  here  let  all   to  the   lioiiorahle   Mr.  Wehsti-i's  .ittiMition   the 

state  ol  the  negotiations  het  wi-en  the  two  j^oveinmeufs  o-i  tills  siilijeet.    So  early 
;'.4]    as  the  year   l-l(i  the  Chevalier  •('oiii'-a  de  Seira.  His  .M..»t    I'aithlnl   Majesty's 

|i!i'iii|totentiary.  a|>|iri»ed  .Mr.  .lames  .NIonroe.  the  then  >eeii  tary  ol"  Slate,  nt* 
•'i-M-  illegal  .'(riiiaiiii-nts  in  Baltimore.  In  Manli.  1^1-',  that  iniiii>t  r  elaiiiied  iii'leiii- 
..lii-alion  l>y  tie-  (otverniiieiit  ol'  I  he  l'nited  States  Tor  the  looses  snstained  hy  rort'i^jiiesi! 
•'ilijects  i"ioiii  tli<-  i-a|>lnies  made  l»y  the  said  [nivateeis.  to  whieh  a]i|iliealioii  •  iie  Si-o- 
•  tary  ol"  State,  in  a  note  dated  the  lltliolsaid  .Maieh.  re]ilieil  that  -the  K  eentive 
::iviii^  ii-«eil  all  Its  |to\ver  to  prevent  the  aniiiii!;  ol"  vessels  in  its  ports  a'^ainst  n.itioiis 
nth  whom  it  wa*  sit  peaee.  and  liavinj^  ]iiit  into  e\eeiition  the  aet^  of  C'on^iess  for 
-'■•■|iiii:;  neutrality,  it  loiilil  not  consider  itself  ohli^ed  to  indemnify  ion  i^iii  itidividiials 
■•ir  l'iN«.-  arisin-j  i'l-iiiii  rapt  iircN  upon  whieh  the  liiited  States  had  iieitln-r  i-ommand 
I'lr  jiinsilietion. " 

Till-  iiiidersiiriieil  willin;;ly  admits  that  if  the  K.vocutive  of  tli-  I'niteil  .States  had 

111  all  its  power  to  prevent  the  armiiii;  of  vessels  within  its  territory,  and  tlieii  sail- 

n.'  from  its  ports  a<^aiiist  the  commerce  of  I'ortiij^ul,  no  claim  could  have  l»ecn  .set  up 

■vor  ill  iM'lialf  of  I'ortiij^iiese  snhjects  .against  the  (Joverii  neiit  of  the  I'liitcil  .States. 

'ill  that  the  only  reiiiedy  would  have  been  against  the  wroiij^-dixTs.  in  the  courts  of  law 

I  the  liiifed  .States,     ijiit,  ill  point  of  fact,  the  tittiii<;-init  of  these  privateers  was  so 

'•toriuiis  tliat.hy  due  dilij^cnee  jiii  the  part  of  the  iiovernment  and  thi;  otlici  rs  of  the 

I  iiiteil  States,  the  evil  inifiht  Inue  lieeii  jireveiited. 

It  aiUK-ars  to  the  iiiiilersi<;neil  that  the  only  i|iiestioii  to  he  exaiiiiiieil  is,  whether  the 

"•Vfrmiieiit  of  the  I'liited  States  could,  hy  the  exercise  of  a  reasonalde  de;;ree  of  dili- 

^•'nci-.  have  prevented  its  citizens  from  sjoiiij;  out  of  its  jiorts  in  armed  vessi-ls.  to  cruise 

i.Miiist  ti.e  commerce  of  l'ortu;rul,a  friendly  nation  with  which  the  I'liite.!  States  had 

■vcrU-eii  at  jH-ace.  and  had  iiiiinternipted  comiiiercial  relations. 

Tlie  iiiiiK'r>i<riieil  respectfully  states  that  the  cai»tiiies  in  ipiestioii  wer«  made  l»y 
Vmeriraii  citi/eiis.  in  vessels  littiii;;  out  in  ports  of  the  I'nitt-d  States,  and  that  the 
"ittin^  nut  of  these  vessels,  he  verily  helieves,  was  '•  not  checked  l»y  all  the  means  in 
'ti«>  jxiw.-r  of  the  UoveriimiMit."  but  that  there  was  a  "  iie^jlect  of  tlie  iieces.sjjry  means 
•f  *ii|>|ires-in<j"  those  expeditions. 

Till-  piiUlic  notoriety  of  these  expeditions  is  easily  shown.     .\   ti-fereiice  to  N'iles's 

Ki-ijisti-r.  ami  other  organs  of  imhlic  information  puhlished  in  those  times,  will  siiHieo 

'T  this  purpose;  and  iiothiiii;  was  more  ^^eiierally  known  at  Kaltimore  than  that  thcs!- 

ii>"litiiiiis  were  commonly  fitted  out  at  that  jmrt.     Indeed,  privateers  were  not  only 

•^luililhil  ill  ISaltimore.  hut  they  were  ticciistoiiieil  to  hriiifi  their  captures  there  for 

'  .\p|M-iidix  to  Ih'ilish  Case.  vol.  iii,  ji.  1.'>T. 


f- 


B 


\m 


I  :^f 


2Aii 


TKKATV    OF    WASIIlXdTOX. 


'  ir 

J  , 


Jl.i^i. 


Miilc.  Till' (toMTiiiiiriit  <>r  tin-  I'niti'il  Stuti-s  iniy,lit,  liy  the  cxiTi-isi- of  diii'  <lili!;(Miri. 
Ii!ivi<  Im-cuiiic  aiqiiaiiitnl  with  tlin  t'lK'tH,  aii<l  lU'i-Vfiilcil  tli«-  |>i'iviitecrs  troiii  xallviii' 
lortli.  " 

Tliti  aiitlinriiii's  of  flic  Siiit<'  <>{'  Marylnnil  wcic  rvidi'iitly  lu'^ilij^ciit  in  iMriiii|ii||„ 
tlicsi- waiiiki- |iri-|iarati<)iis  in  tlii>  |i(Hi  of  Italliinoif,  and  as  no  claim  can  ln' hhmIi.  i,^ 
l'i>rtu;^al  a^rainst  lliat  State,  all  c()ni|ilaiiits  t'onnilcil  upon  the  nc^liircncc  of  tlif  Stuii 
anthoiitics  nui.s|,iit'  coniNc;  he  made  against  the  (iovernmciit  nt' llie  I'liited  SlatiM.  ;ii,i| 
tliiM  iMtviMiiuieiit  is,  theret'ore,  as  the  nndersi};ne(l  t't>nceive»<,  liahle  foi  that  im  <<;l('i't.< 

To  tilis  dispntcli  in)  aiiswor  !ii)iK'iiisloliiiv«>  boon  inado.  Tlio  (Itivcin 
incnt  ol"  tilt'  I'liitt'tl  Statos  had  icitcratod  its  roliisal  to  r«'tVr  the  cljiiins 
to  a  coimnissioii,  ohjoctiii;;'  that  thoy  were  '•  ohsoh'te."-  It  was.  Iiow 
ovor,  at  till'  saino  tinio,  jnossiii;;;  ajfaiiist  I'orttipil  u  chiiiii  for  ('(»iii|hmi 
Nation  on  account  ot"  an  American  piivatoor,  tU'stro.vcd  in  tiio  poitci 
Fayal  in  1814 — a  chiim,  tiicrororo,  which  was  of  still  earlier  date  tli;iii 
those  of  J'«)rtnj;:a!,  and  was  afterward  referred  to  arbitration  and 
reje<-ted. 

The  coini>lai]its  and  expostulations  of  the  Spanish  minister,  Don  Lujv 
de  Onis,  Averc^  still  more  fre<pient  ami  more  veheeneiit  tiiai! 
vlrP''Ku«J'vmx".]  those  of  the  minister  of  l*ortn;>;al ;  bnt  the  snbstaiico  ot 
them  was  the  same.  The  notoriety  of  the  acts  e<»mplaiii('ii 
«if,  the  o|ienness  with  which  they  were  done,  tlie  toleration  of  tlietii  liv 
tin'  anthorities,  the  refusals  of  the  collectors  of  customs  to  act  on 
evidence  within  their  reach,'  the  diilicnlty  which  the  Spanish  consul- 
exi)erienc»'d  in  obtaining;  any  testimony  against  unlawful  speculatinih 
in  w liich  so  many  persons  were  interested,  were  strongly  and  repeatcdh 
insisted  on.  These  grievances  Avcre  tinally  summed  np  in  a  iiot( 
addressed  to  ^Ir.  J.  Q.  Adan)S  on  the  Uith  of  November,  1818,  in  tlu 
course  of  the  nej^otiations  for  the  treaty  of  the  succeedin«;  year: 

\\'ljatc\er  may  l>e  the  forecast,  wisdom,  and  jnslice  cons]iicnoiis  in  tlio  laws  of  III^ 
I'nited  ^?tatcs,  it  is  nniversally  notoiions  that  a  system  of  pillajii-  and  ajim'essioii  li;i- 
been  orjiani/cd  in  several  ports  of  the  Union  ajjainst  the  vessels  and  piojierty  of  tin 
Spanish  nation:  and  it  isciin.illy  so  that  all  the  le<;al  snits  hitherto  institiifetl  li\  Hi- 
Catholic;  Majesty's  consnls,  in  the  courts  of  their  rcsjiective  districts,  for  its  prevciitini 
or  the  recovery  of  the  jiroperty  when  hron^ht  into  this  country,  have  been,  and  sli 
are.  completely  unavailing.  The  artifices  an«l  <'vasions  l»y  nu-aus  of  which  the  Utt'i 
of  tlui  law  has  on  these  occasions  been  constantly  eluded,  are  sutlieiently  known,  iiinl 
even  the  comhination  »»f  interests  in  jicrsons  who  are  well  known,  anion^  wlioiii  aiv 
.sonu"  holdiii*;  i)ul»lic  ollices.  AVith  a  view  to  alVord  you  and  the  President  inon 
[:',."> "1  ctuuplete  demonstration  of  the  ahn.ses,  aj^jjressions,  and  i>iracies  ''alluded  to,  I 
inclose  you  correct  lists,  extracted  from  autln-ntie  doeunu'Uts  deposited  in  tin 
archivesof  thishMjiitlon,  exhihitiujrthe  number  of  privateers,  or  jtirates,  fitted  out  in  tin 
I'nited  States  against  Spain,  and  of  tlio  prizes  brou>rht  by  tht'ui  into  the  jjorts  of  tin 
Union,  as  well  as  of  those  sent  toother  ports,  toj^ether  with  the  result  of  the  claims  minlr 
l\v  the  S|tanish  consuls  in  tlu'  courts  of  this  country.  Amonjj  them  you  will  tiiid  tin 
case  of  two  armed  ships,  the  Horatio  and  Curiazo,  built  at  New  York,  and  detaiiiod  i» 
His  Majesty's  consul  there,  on  the  ground  of  their  having  on  board  thirty  pieces nl 
cannon  ouicealed,  with  their  carriages,  and  a  crew  of  l(i<,'  men.  On  wliich  occasioiiii 
was  ]>retended  that  it  could  not  be  juoved  that  these  guns  were  not  an  article  of  com 
merce,  and  they  limilly  put  to  sea  without  them,  the  extraordinary  number  of  oilicTt* 
and  crew  pa.ssing  for  passengers.  The  number  of  privateers,  or  pirates,  lifted  out  ami 
))rotected  in  the  jiorts  ot  this  republic,  as  well  as  «)f  the  Spanish  prizes  made  by  tliiin 
far  exceeds  that  contained  in  the  within  lists,  bnt  I  only  lay  before  your  (iovcnnniiii 
tho.se  of  which  1  have  certain  and  satisfactory  jnoofs.  The  right  of  Spain  to  an  ade(|ii:iti 
indemnity  for  all  the  .spoliations  committed  by  these  privateers,  or  ]iirates,  on  the  Crowii 
and  subjects  of  His  Catholic  Majesty,  is  undeniable:  but  I  iu>w  submit  it  to  your  Govern- 
nient  only  to  ptiint  out  the  extreme  necessity  of  putting  an  end  to  these  eontinnedad- 

'  Appeiulix  to  liritisli  Casj-,  vol.  iii,  ])p.  Ki'),  ItHi. 

-  Mr.  Clavt«m  to  Senhor  de  Figaniere  e  Morao,  March  :*)(),  1A')0.— Appendix  to  Hiiti^l 
Case,  vol.  iii,  p.  IGIt. 

^An  instiuciive  s|)ecinieu  will  be  foiind  i>i  the  c(UTesponden«'e  which  accoini''"'"'' 
the  note  of  Don  Luis  de  Onis  to  Mr.  .1.  i).  Adams,  of  November  '2,  If-IT,  (see  .Vpiuiub 
to  the  Ihitish  Case.  vol.  iii,  p.  IIH.)  It  does  not  appear  that  any  answer  was  ntiinii' 
by  the  Secretary  of  State  to  this  application. 


<<)rNTER   CASK    UK    <iI{i;A'l'    HIMTAIN. 


247 


,:  liiiMtilit.v  ami  ili'|ii'nliitii>ii,  atxl  of  iiitliii^  shtnl  l|ii--«-  I'litiriiiuiis  anil  lla;;ianl  al>Ms<-> 
,iii|  )\il>,  iiy  IIh>  aiii)|ition  of  hikIi  flVi-iliinl  |)ii'riiiili<)iiH  ami  ifint'tliis  as  will  piit  it  out 
,:'  the  |Mi\vi-i'  ol'  ciipiility  or  iii;rfiiniiy  to  ili'li-at  or  cIidIc  tlinii.  In  \'ain  .shonhl  \vi>  rii- 
il,iiviii  aiiii<ali!,v  to  Htttic  aiiil  arcominoihitc  ail  csistiii);  ilitlnt'iucs.  an<l  tliiis  i-stalilisli 
,i,-ai'ciiiiil  <i*»n\  iiiiiliTstanilin^  ln-t  w  i-rn  tin-  t  wo  nations,  if  lli(<  practice  ot'  tlicso  aliUHc.s. 
iiiil  tiic  I'liiirHc  of  llicnc  lio><t ilii ics  anil  piracies  on  the  commerce  ami  navi;;ation  of 
Spain  shiiiilil,  as  lieii'tofore,  e<Mit inne  nninterrnpleil  in  the  I'liiteil  Stati-s.  From  the 
•iiHil-  111'  the  (locnniiMits  now  incloseil,  ami  of  the  rcllections  sii;;;;este<l  hy  the  vel\\ 
Kinne  and  stale  of  thin;;s.  the  President  cannot  hesitate  to  assent  to  niy  proposal  on 
'Ills  snlijcct :  and,  as  the  ('oMu;re.ss  ir*  now  in  session,  I  leel  assnrcd  that  the  proper  op- 
mitiinily  is  alforded  for  the  adoption  ot'  the  necessary  measures  I  have  allnded  to,  and 
vliiih  I  solicit  as  an  essential  hasis  of  secnrin<;  and  maintaining;  a  niutnal  friendship 
^.|i|;;iicid  imderstandinn  between  the  two  nations. 

Till'  list  <>r  privatiM'is  lillcd  <nit  in  Aiin'iiciiii  polls,  w  liicli  Wiis  iiiclosi'd 
II  tlif  al»()ve  iiott',  iiicliiilctl  (wctit.v  ('i,i;Iit  vcsst'ls  of  tlKli'ft'iit  cliisscs. 

lief  ^[.ijiisty's  o;ovi'ni!m'iir  m  i\  he  |n'riiiitti'(l  liofo  to  i'cimII  the  tli'li- 
litioii  of  (iiUMlili;;i'iin'  pivst'iitcd  to  tlic  ;iil»itrat(>r><  In  tlic  Case  ot  tlie 
Iiiitt'd  States: 

The  I'nited  States  nnderstand  that  the  diiij^eme  which  is  culled  for  l»y  the  rules  of 

hr  treaty  of  \Vashiny;toii  is  a  tine  dili;ience:    that   is,  a  diliu'ence  proportioned  to  the 

.;i;;iiituile  of  the  snhjcct.and  to  t he  di<;nity  and  siren;;th  of  the  power  which  is  to 

Miiisc  it;  a  iliii;;ence  which  shall,  liy  tin-  nse  ofaciive  vi;filance,  and  of  all  the  other 

iiaih  ill  the  powei'  of  a  neutral,  tliroii;;li  :ill  stages  ol'  the  transaction,  prevent  its  soil 

Mini  lii-iii;{  vi(dat<-d :  a  diligence  that  shall,  in  like  manner,  deter  desi;;;iiin>r  men  from 

Miiiiiiittiii;;'  acts  of  war  n|>on  the  soil  of  the  iieiilral  a;;aiiisi  its  will,  and  thus  possihis 

;i;iu';;iiiy,  it  into  a  war  wlii<li  it  would  a\(»id ;  a  dili;iiiice  which   jirompls  the  ncntral 

:  illic  most  energetic  nicasnres  to  discover  any  ]>iirpose  of  doiii;;-  the  acts  forhiddeii  liy 

••  liooil  faith  as  a  neutral,  and  iiii|ioses  upon   it   tlie  oldi^^ation.  wiien   it   receives  the 

^Il()^^]cd<{e  of  an  intention  to  comiiiit   such  acts,  to  nsi' all  tln^  nwaiis  in  its  power  to 

iiiviiil  it.     \o  (lilijjt'iice  short  of  this  would  he  due;    that  is,  coiiiineiisiirutc  with  the 

iiicii^ciicy.  or  with  tin?  nia;;nitiide  of  the  results  of  iie;;li;jence.-' 

Tlic  r>iitisli  <4overniu«Mit  may  In*  pcnnitttMl  to  ox'incss  their  helief  that 
!  tlii.sdefiiiitioii  hatl  been  eoiiteiided  l'«)r  in  ISIS  l>y  .S|iain  and  JNntujjal, 
I  wdnhl  liave  been  deemed  by  the  (Jovenimunt  of  the  United  States  to 
iwjiiiro  iiinch  quidilieation. 

it  is  anege<i  in  the  Ca.se  of  the  I'nited  State.s'  tliat,  by  the  treaty 
•it  tile  I'lM  February,  1S1!>,  (.'ompeniiation  w.is  made  by  the  United 
States  to  Spain  tor  injuries  similar  to  tho.se  whieli  they  assert  that 
tlu>y  have  sustained  from  (Ireat  IJrilain.  No  compensation  was  paid 
10  Spain.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  api)eiirs  to  eonfouud 
a  rticiprocal  remineiation,  in  ma.ss,  of  di.sputed  claims  not  ascer- 
tained, and  not  admitted  to  be  valid,  with  a  payment,  by  set  ofl',  of 
<laims  the  validit.y  of  which  is  disputed  on  neither  side.  JJy  Article  IX 
of  that  treaty,  for  the  purpo.se  of  [tutting'  an  end  to  all  ditierences  be 
tweeii  the  two  powers,  each  agreed  to  renounce  all  claims  upon  the 
otiier,  the  rennuciatiou  iniduding,  on  one  .side,  "all  claim.s  of  citizens 
of  the  United  States  upon  the  government  of  Spain  arising  from  unlaw- 
I'lil  seizures  at  sea,  and  in  the  ports  and  territories  of  Spain  or  the 
Spanish  colonies;''  and,  on  the  other,  all  like  claims  of  Spanish  subjects 
upon  the  Government  of  the  Unitetl  States.  On  neither  sitlo  was  there 
HI  admission  that  the  claims  of  the  other  were  valid.  On  the  part  of 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  there  was  certaiidy  no  admi.ssiou 
tliat  it  had  been  guilty  of  negligence.  On  the  contrary,  when,  in  the 
preceding  negotiations,  the  Spanish  government  had  asked   that  the 

American  Government  shoidd  pledge  itself  to  take  some  measures 
jIj;     in  order  to  remedy  "the  abu.ses  *  which,  contrary  to  the  law  of 

nations,  and  contrary  to  what  is  expres.sly  stipulated  in  the  treaty 

'Appoiitlix  to  HritiHh  Case,  vol.  iii,  p.  I'M. 
-Ca.so  of  till)  i'nited  States,  p.  loH. 
'I'ajies  i:«)aiid','i:i. 


i 


.  m 

■  1 ' ' 

248 


TKKATV    OF    \VA.SHIN(;T<)X. 


of  ]??*.>,  ^.  ily  occur  in  some  ports  of  ihc  Up'op,  in  coiisc<{Uciic(»  of  tin 
vafjiio  iind  arbitiiii'.v  intcrimMiilioii  wiiich  it  s.'oins  the  inciisiircs  uiiti! 
r.ow  adopted  iiie  suscej)tiblo  of,  usui  by  means  of  which  thi;  hiw  i> 
eluded'' — in  sliort,  to  amend  its  neutrality  hiw — th(5  refusal  <»t  tli. 
Ainericaii  (loveinment  was  conveyed  in  theses  terms:  ''Of  the  niaii; 
eoin{>laints  which  you  have  a«ldresse<l  to  this  (iovernment  in  relation  t,, 
alle;;*!'!!  transactions  in  our  ports,  the  d«'ticien<y  has  l»een,  not  in  tl,, 
nieaninjjf  or  interpretation  ot  the  treaty,  but  in  the  proof  of  the  fart 
which  you  Inne  stated,  or  which  liave  been  reported  to  yon.  tn  Itiin; 
thecasesof  <'omj>laint  within  the  scope  (»f  thesti|udationsof  the  treaty." 
The  complaint  was.  tiiat  many  acts  had  been  ('ommitted  which  Wd, 
vi«>hUions  of  international  law  as  well  as  of  the  treaty.  'J'!'"  :i',s\vti 
was,  that  no  sullicient  i)roof  had  been  .niven  of  thes»^  \  iolations.  |r 
may  be  obserxcd  that  the  claims  of  the  l'nit<'d  States  a.ijainsi  Spaji 
Mere  founded  on  complaints  \('ry  diiVerent.  and  appari'utly  of  \ei v  n. 
ferior  force,  to  those  urj^ed  by  Spain  aj^aiust  the  c'niled  States,  li  m;,, 
be  further  remarked  Ilia?  the  treat;, oIL'Tth  October,  !7!*.~»,  iM're  rcicii.. 
to,  cont;;i'«cd,  with  other  i)rovisions  for  tlif  ]»rot<'ction  of  Spanisii  com 
nierce,  an  ajiri'enu'nt  that  no  citi/en  or  inhabitant  of  the  ITuited  SIatl^ 
shonhl  ai>i>l.\  for  or  tak«'  any  coinniissiMn  (»r  letters  uf  marque  lb)'  aniiiu. 
any  ship  to  a<'t  as  .i  pii^att'i  r  a;:;ainst  Spanish  snltjects  oi- tiieii  |ii(i|. 
orty.  from  an\  state  at  war  with  Spain,  and  that  any  pi'rsou  doin.u  tiii^ 
should  Ix"  imnislied  as  i  puate.  The  obligations  of  the  I'nited  S'.a;; - 
to  S|)ain  did  ne<t  rest  aion.'  on  the  .ueiieral  pi  in<iples  of  intei  iiati(ii!;i 
law.  but  on  the  express  stiiailations  (tf  a  treaty. 


I.  l.Aii.i;  \  !(>!.. \i  hiN.'^  I)!'   iKi:  .Vaii::;ic.\n   .\i;i  ri;  \!.ii'\    law 


A.s  ihe  railed  Slates  ha\A'  ajipealed  to  their  history  as  ilbistratin. 
their  concepti«>n   of  neutral  duties,  and   oi"  the  measun-ii: 
th."''w"^;!!'''','r'  dilijiciu'e  which  fhuse  duties  r<'((iiiic.  it  is  necessary  roivi-: 
to  s«une  later  jiassaj^es  in  that  histoiy.  sfiowiuf;-  the  iiii|iiiiiii 
with  wh'ih  armed  e\]>editions  have  been  repeafe.Uy,  and  with  little  im 
no  attempt  at  ct)nce;:lment,  oi'^^ani/ed  within  the   [  nited  i'ttates.  aii' 
k,i,..uM.i„. .1..    dispat«'hed    theiic"  aiirainst    the  territories  of  tiieml!\  in 
•■""•"■  tions. 

The  expedition.^  to  whicii  llei'  .Majest v's  government  desire  moif  im; 
ti<Mdarly  to  call  the  atti'ution  of  tiie  arbittators  are: 
The  lilibusteriu.i;  attacks  under  Lojm  /  upon  Cuba  : 
Thttse  uiuler  AN  alker  upon  INb'xieo  am!  Centrai  Anieriea  ; 
The  Fenian  raids  upon  Camula. 

JAri'Oti  IONS   (iF    l.(M-KZ    AtiAINST   'lltV. 


V,.'u«i  t  iiUh.  !"■'" 


The  facts  with  rcjSiird  to  the  expedition-  -iiub'itaken  ajja.inst  ('iibii'' 
lA))>e/,  from  the  United  States  are  as  folii;\ss: 
On  the  Hth  Aiuvust,  l.S45>,  the  rre.siden^  of  the  riiited  States  i.ssiiiu 
a  proclanuition  statinjn' that  ''there  is  reason  to  b«'':eve  tli;ii 
an  armetl  expedition  is  about  to  be  litt* d  out  in  tiie  riiittii 
States,  with  iia  intention  to  invade  the  islaml  of  Cuba  or  some  ef  tin 
Itrovinees  ei  Me.\ico,"and  that  "the  best  information  which  the  lAOt" 
ine  has  b«eii  able  to  obtain  poiirls  to  the  island  of  Cuba  as  the  elijir: 
of  this  exj«e«lition  :"  and  <'alliny'  upon  "  every  ofbeerof  this  (loveiniiuiii 

il'.iii  I.nis  di'  Oiiis  to  .Mr.  .1.  i)  A'laiiis,  nitoixT  "Jl,  1^1-,  ^niijifinlix  to  lliiti.-li  l"- 
Tul.  iii,  p.  l','l»;)  Mr.  .l.(^  AdaiiiH  to  Don   laiin  i\v  Oiii.x.  n<t.<tli<r  :tl.  IHIs,  (iltiil..vol 
l..i:Hi.) 


COUNTKR    CASK    OK    (;RKAT    BRITAIN. 


249 


livilor  •nilitaiy,  to  use  all  riorts  in  his  power  to  arrest,  for  trial  and 
Miiiiislmient,  every  siieh  offeii  1«m- ajjainst  tlie  laws  i»rovidin{»;  lor  the  per- 
;,irmiin(i»  of  our  sacred  obi  i<;at  ions  to  triendly  powers," 

The  Sj»aiii>li  adventurer,  Lopez,  whose  preparations  for  a  niaraudiuii 
iivasion  of  Cubii.  with  a  view  to  its  annexation  to  the  i..„„.,-,  „r.t.xi- 
liiitt'd  States,  had  jjiven  rise  to  this  proelaniation,  eon-  """'  '*'" 
;ii)Ui'il  tlu'tn  un<let«  rred.  On  the  Tth  May,  l.sr)0,  he  lelt  >«ew  Orleans 
111  a  steamer  with  about  .■»()(>  men,  i'eeompanied  by  two  other  vessels,  and, 
,111  tilt'  17th,  laiuled  at  Cardenas,  a  small  town  on  the  northwest  side  of 
the  island.  liOpe/  occupied  the  town,  but  shortly  afterward  troo|)s  ar- 
i{\C{\  from  Havana,  and  he  was  compj'Ued  to  rei'nibark,  and  escape«l 
10  tin-  I  nited  States. 

On  the  Jith  May  liOpc/  was  arr«'st«'<l ;  but,  no  delay  beiuH;  planted  by 
ilif  district  Jnd^e  to  procure  e\  ich'iice  ajLjainst  him,  he  was  discharj^ed, 
uiiid  tin-  cheers  (»!' a  laryc  crowd. 

(Jii  tlic  l.">th  duly,  torty-two  of  the  pt'rsons  who  had  been  «'n;;a;;ed 
«ith  him  in  the  attemjited  invasion,  and  who  had  been  taken  prisoners. 
Aire  lilicvat<Ml  by  the  Spanish  authoriticii,  and  were  taken  to  IN-nsacola 

tt\  the  Inited  States  ship  Alltany. 

.;;  *On  tin*  iMst  .Inly  the  ;;rand  Jury  at  Xew  Orleans  foum!  a  tru»^ 

l>ill  auainsl  Lope/,  and  lifteen  others,  for  violating  tin'  act  of  ISIS, 

i'lii'  Aiiu'ri<;in    <  loNciiimcnt,  liowcxcr,  faih'd    in   makin^i'  out    its  ease 

ijiliiist  one  or  two  of  the   parties,  and   linally  al>andoned   the  putsecu- 

■idll.' 

No  .sooner  was  Lopr/.  at  lil>erly.  than  he  set  to  woi  1^  to  or^u  i/.r 
.tiiotlier  expedition,  of  which  an  ai<onnl  is  ^ixcn  l)y  the  IMcsiilont  ol 
:ii(' I'nite''  States  in    lii-^  nn'ssau','    to  ron;;i'ess  <»f  the  I'd  of  he  rndxT. 

lv".l: 

Since  ilic  cIdm'  III'  tin-  l.isl  <  c.ii;;ic  ss.  (  iit;iiii  ('iiIiioin  ;iiii|  hIIht  f('iiinni'i>  rcsiilriif  in 
ill  I'll  i  I II I  Sluli'.--.  \\  Ini  wi'i'c  iiioir  III  Irss  ('(iiii'i'nit'll  ill  t  llr  |Hrvi(Mls  ill  v:i>iiiill  ol'  <  ilhil, 
i»|i';iil  111'  lifiliu  ilisiKlllilUfil  li\  ilN  r;lilliri'.  ll:l\c  il;iilill  alillsril  llii'  liiispif  :ilit  v  kI'  tilis 
tilllltl>  li>  illilUill^  it  till'  set-Ill'  i>r  till'  ei|ili|>lllelit  uC  jiliotlier  lllllihll'V  expeilit  lull 
.;.lill>!    liillt    )iii'.>e^siiill  of   Mel'    (  ill  llnlie  M:ijesly,  in    S\  lliell    tiles    We're    eiilllilelljllireil. 

iiliil. mill  JiMiied  liy  eiti/eiis  III' till-  I 'iiiieil  States.  *  '  "  \'erv  t'lirly  in  the  iiioriiiii;;  *>!' 
Ill'  ;i(l  iifAiiirnsl  ii  steamer,  calleil  the  I'aiiiiM-ni,  ili-|i:ii'teil  t'lniii  New  Oileaiis  lur  Ciilia. 
!:iviiii;iin  liuani  n|)\\ar<l  nt'  lUii  aiineil  men,  with  esiih-iil.  iiileiiiiims  In  maUe  war  ii|Min 
:iii' iiiitlioi'iiies  III' the  island.  'I'liis  i>x|M>iliti<iii  was  set  nii  I'lxtt  in  tin-  ]ial|ialil<' violation 
■I'llie  laws  of  tin-  I'niteil  States.  Its  le.i<li-r  was  a  S|iaiiiai'il,  anil  several  of  the  eliiel' 
"IliciTs.  aiid  stun  '  olliers  en;.;aj4etl  m  it.  weri>  l't>reiy;in'rs.  'i'lie  |ii-\'sims  i't>m|iosiii;;  it. 
iiiiwt'M-r.  wt't' iiiosilv  I'iii/eiis  tit' ihe  liiitt-tl   States.     *      '  '{'he  steamer   iiiwhith 

:iii'y  tiiilcrketl  It'll  New  ( tileaiis  si  '.iltliiiv  anil  w  ilhont  a  t'learanee.  .M'tt-r  tniiihin-; 
it  Ki'\  West,  she  in'oeei'tletl  In  the  coast  ol'Ciiha,  .'illil  nil  tile  Ilijihl  lietwt-eli  the  llth 
tiitl  1','tli  tif  Aiij;nst  laiiili  tl  the  )>eisitiis  on  lioaitl  at  I'laytas,  within  alioiit  twenty 
'i'ii;;iir>  111' Havana.  'I'lit-  inaiii  '(ihI.v  of  them  )iiiiret'iletl  tn.  ami  took  piissessimi  ot',  an 
iiihintl  Nillaiit'.  .six  leajiiie^i  ili.stant,  leavinii;  others  to  follow  in  i'har;;e  of  tin-  lia;jiiai;i-. 
'"siiiiii  as  the  means  of  .ranNpoi'tation  I'oiilil  In-  olitaiiietl.  The  latter  liav  iii<z  taken  ii|> 
'licir  line  of  iiianli  tn  eonnet't.  themselves  with  tho  main  Imtly,  ami  liaviii;;  iiroeeeili'tl 
ilMiiit  ftiiir  lt'a;.;iies  into  tlif  itMintry,  vvt-ie  altaeketl,  tni  the  nioinin;;  of  tin-  lUtli.  liy  a 
khIv  t)f  Spanish  tmops,  jvnil  a  hlootly  tiinlliit  eiismil  ;  after  vvliieh  tln-y  rt-tieattil  to 
:lii'|iliii't'  of  ili.seinliarkatinn,  vvlii-re  altont  lifty  of  them  olitaim-tl  lioatsanti  rt--i-niliarki<il 
ilitjreiii.  llit-y  were,  however,  inteifejitetl  aiiioii^  the  keys  near  the  shore  liy  a  Spaiiiuli 
'tfiiiiit'i-  I'liiisini;  nil  the  eoast,  e.i|itnreil,  ami  larrietl  In  Havana,  ami  after  lit-iii;;  t-x- 
iniiiii'il  hefiiie  ,'|  iiiilitiiiy  I'oni't.  wen-  seiilein'i-<l  to  In- i;iililiely  exeiiitetl.  ami  tin-  seii- 
''■iii>' «as  earrieil  intoelV'-ft  on  till'  Kith  of  .Vny;iisf.  "      '     Aettiitlinj;  to  the  reeonl 

'1  lilt'  examination,  the  pi  iMUit-rs  all  ailinitteil  tin- ntlii'nm's  iliaiyeil  against  tln-iii.  ot' 
"iiij^liiislih'  invailersof  the  islam  I.  At  the  t  inn-  of  their  trial  ami  exetiitioii  the  imtin 
'"hIv  tif  the  invaders  was  still  in  tin-  lit-hl,  making;  war  upon  tin'  Spanish  antlioiitit'H 
I'ltl  Simtiish  siilijt'l'ts,  Affi-r  tin-  lapse  of  soiiit-  ilays.  Iteiiijr  oveieomt-  Ity  the  Spanisji 
"'"'ps,  till  y  ilispevsed  on  tilt'  •i\t)\  of  .Vii^nsi  ;  l-ope/.  their  h-mler,  was  eaptnn-il  some 
'''y^iil'li'i,  anil  exeenteil  on  tin-  1st  of  St-pti-mlter,  Many  of  his  remaininn  foll<»\vers 
""■  killed,  ordied  of  linii;^er  .iiiil  fatijiiie,  ami  the  resi  wen-  math'  piisom-rs. 

Appendix  to  Hritisli  Cast-,  vtd.  Hi.     l{i-port  of  \t-iitru!ity  <'iMiiiiiisMii>ii.  p.  '.'>\. 


^-M 


250 


IKKATY    OF    \\'ASIII\(JT0\. 


"■»(#• 


liiit  wliat  ;;i\rsa  pfiiiliar  ci  iiiiinalify  to  tlii.s  invasitm  <tl"  (,'iil)a  is.  tliat  iiiidcr  tlir 
li-ail  of  Spanish  siilijccts,  and  with  the  aid  of  citiziMis  of  tlic^  I'liitcd  States,  it  luul  jtx 
origin,  with  many,  in  mutivrs  ofcnitidify.  Money  was  advanced  liy  individimU.  pi-,,!,. 
alily  ill  eoiisitleralile  aiiioiiuts,  to  piireliase  Ciihan  iioiids,  as  they  have  lieeii  callnl,  isMicil 
by  Jiope/.  sohl.  doiihtless,  at  a  veiy  iari{e  diseoiiiit.  and  for  the  payiiieiif  of  whicli  th,. 
])iihlic-  1,'inils  :iiid  piildic  properly  oft'iilia.  of  whatever  liiiid,  and  tiie  liseal  icmhiici.. 
of  the  peoph'  and  govern nii'iit  of  t iiat  island,  from  wiiatever  soiin;*;  to  he  derived,  w,.], 
ple<i;;ed,  as  well  ;is  the  y;ood  faith  of  the  jj;overnmeiil  expected  to  he  estalilisli 


•n 


these  means  ot  iiavinent.  it  is  evw 


lent. 


.(■  only  to  he  ohtaiiied  l)y  a  |irocess  of  li|( 


shed,  war,  and  revolution.     None  will  deny  that  those  who  s.d  on  foot  military  ex] 
tioiis  a;iaiiisl  forei;;!!  states  l>y  means  like   these  arc  far  more  ciipahlc  than  the  i;r 


iiii- 


laiit  and  the  iieeessitons  whom  they  induce  to  iro  t'oith  as  the  osleiisihic  parti"s  in  ij 
)iidi'ee(lin;i.  'riii-se  oii;;inators  of  the  invasion  of  ( 'iiha  seem  to  have  detcrmiiieil,  win, 
coolness  and  sy>tem.  upon  an  iiiiderlakin;;  which  shinild  dis;rr;iee  their  country,  vici- 
late  its  laws,  and  put  to  hazard  the  li\es  of  ill-inlormed  and  delndeil  iiieii.  \(>u  will 
consider  whether  fntiirc  le;;islation  he  necessary  to  prevent  the  i»erpetratioii  of  mii' 
otfeliscs  in  fill  lire. 

\vai.m;i{'s  i;\i'ki)iti(»ns  aiiaixst  Mi;\if'<t  and  ("kntk'al  aaikimi  a. 


TIm*  spiiit  (»f  reckless  ji(lv«'iiliiir  wliicli  tlie  ( lovci  iiiiiciit  olllic  riiitcil 
States  liiid  lieeii  iiiiiil)le  to  lepiess  in  1S."»1  and  ]S."ii.*  IoiiikI  vent  in  tlif 
lollowiiijn-  yeaf  in  nnofliei"  (iii'eetioii. 

Tlie  Icinlei'  of  the  new    entei|»iise  was  a  eiti/en  of  the   rnited  Sl;iti- 

nanieil  \Valkei',  who  put  himself  at  the  iiead   of  a   Itaini 

I." •»'.'„'..  M.-'v,'.',,  of  '•  liiihiisteis,"  as   thev   wei'e  t<>i'nied,  and  detefiniiit'd  oii 

.mil  Ct-rili'.il  Aiiifi 
KVI.  KV..  i«;.: 

1H.VI.  Mil. I   Iwill 


i->   the  eon(|iiest  of  tiie   Mexican    posscs.sions  in    Louei'  (';il 


loi'iiia. 

The  attempt  was  made  in  ( )ctohei',  IS."*,!,  1(\  an  expedition   fiiiiii  S;ii 
^^,    .     V,         l-'iancisco.     The  lililinsteis  seized  the  town  of  La  I'ii/.,  killfii 
'*''  seven  of  its  defendeis,  and  wounded  othei's,  and  «'omniittn: 

Viirions  excesses.  They  wei-e  fc  (Mdoi'ced  by  anothei'  expedition,  wliicli 
sailed  in  the  Anita  IVom  San  l-'iiiiieiseo  in  Decemhei',  Iml  weie  eveiitn 
all.v  driven  oiik  of  the  country. 

The  distiiihed  state  of  Cent lal  Ameiica  made  it  the  next  tem|»tiii: 
|»tey.  ami  sehemes  were  openly  planned  in  the  I'nited  Stales  liv  sii 
<"alled  ••  transit"  and  "  emjoration"  companies,  for  takin;^;  forcible  pH'> 
.session  of  it.  Walker  was  ajiain  piii,  in  commaml,  and  sailed  from  S;ii 
Francisco  on  the  Ith  of  May,  lS,i,),  with  his  lilibnsters.  lie  arrived  ii' 
K'ealejo  on  the  !"»th  of  .iiine,  iiiid,  after  various  i«dventnr«'s,  dm 
I'AH]  inji' which  he  assumed  the  *title  of  Presideid,  of  NiciU'iJjiua,  iiml 
was  reco<ini/-(Ml  in  that  capacrity  by  the  Unitetl  States  represeiiia 
five,  he  was  .siirronnd»Ml  at  Jvivas  by  Hie  native  for<'.es  in  May.  l'^.'»I 
'I'hronnrh  the  mediation  of  the  commander  of  the  I'nited  States  sliiji  n! 
war  Saint  Mary's,  he  wiis  allowed  to  surrender  nnmolested,  and  to  i" 
conveyed  away  on  boanl  that   vessel,  with  lln'  remnant  of  his  followciv 

On  reachino  the  I'nited  States,  lie  bejjaii  to  recruit  for  a  fresh  ex|HMii 
tioti,  and  his  preparations  became  so  notorious  as  to  <'all  for  the  follow 
iiifj  cii'ciiliir  to  the  district  attonx'ys  and  marsli.ils  from  (leneral  ('ii>*>. 
the  I'nited  Slates  Secretarv  of  State  : 


I  l>i:i'Ai!i  mi:m   or  Sim  i;. 

H  (iiiliitiijloii,  iSiplniihir  l~.  I"'" 

I'roin  information  rcccivi-il  jit  this  Itepartiiieiit,  there  is  reiiMoii  to  helievc  tliai  li" 
ies>.  persons  arc  now  eiiffatjed,  within  the  limits  of  the  United  Slati'>.  n 
Nctliiiy;  on  foot  and  iirepanii);  the  means  for  militarv  cxpidiliiin*' 
he  carried  on  a<iaiiist  tie  territories  of  .Mexico,  Nicara>iiia,  and  *'"'" 
li'iea.  repiihlics  with  whom  the  I  nited  Stales  are  at  pc".  e,  in  diri'itM" 
lation    of  the  sixth    section  of  the   act  of  ('(m<;ress  approved 'Ji'tli  A] 


C'nciitir    r*><|initi)a 

till*  |iM  III  lliltlinnlii-^ 
111  liw  Wuf  ttihfff »!' ' 
In  liri'iifhl   til i\ 

IWclllMIll-. 


Mil 


IHl; 


mil  nni 


Icr  Ih 


cijl 


htli  section  id' the  said  acl  it  is  made  lawful  for  the  riv^iili'"' 


or  Hiieli  other  jtersons  as  he  shall  cni|tower,  to  eiiiplo.v   (he  land  or  na\al  loncs  nl  lli' 
United  States,  and  the  militia  thereof.  "  lor  the  purpose  of  preventing;  the  ciinyiiii; " 


COrXTKK    CASK    OF    GRF.A  I     IJKITAIN. 


251 


■wm 


i' 


.iiiv  Mifli  ('Xix'ilitiiHi  or  fii(('i|irisi'  IVkhi  tin-  ti-rriliuii's  oi-  iurisdictidii  kI'  tlii'  1  'iiitt-d 

'r.iii's." 

!  Hill,  lliricfiUf.  (lircclcil  !»y  llii-  rroidciit  ti>  •■iill  vniir  iittcnlioii  to  tlir  Milijccf,  iiiiil 
,,  uiui' .\iiii   til  IIS)-   ,'ill  iliit    diVnjiiicc.  niitl  to   iiv:iil   voiiisi'lt'  ol'  :ill  l<-<^it  iiii.'itr  iiicaiis  :it 

iiii'coiiiiiiiiiiil,  t(i  t'litiircc  llii'sr  :iii(l  till  oilii-r  ])riivisiiiiis  iif  t  lir  >aiil  iu-t  of  'JUth  April. 

•  i-.  iliriiiiisl   tliMsr  wliii   iiijiy  In    rniiiHl  III    I ii<;a;!;i'il   in    si-ttiii;^  on    Cool  or  |ir<'|iariii}{ 

iiililiiiy  I'NlK'ilitioiis  aiiaiiist  f  lie  trnitorifs  ot' Mcxiro,  Costa  liica.  and  ol' Nicaragua,  so 
iiaiiil'csti.v  lucjiidicial  to  tiic  national  iliaractiT,  and  so  injiiiioiis  lo  tiif  national  inter- 

Ainl  you  art' also  licrcliy  instriictid  ]Mdiiiiilly  to  roinniiiniralr  to   tliis  Diparlincni 
.  iiiriifsi  intoniiatioii  you  may  rt'ci'ivc  rrlalivr  to  siicli  <'\|irditions. 

Ill  Octolx'i',  I.S.")!,  lionl  Xiipior,  Jlcr  M;iJ('st.v*s  iiiiiiistcr  sit  \\  ;isliiiio- 

•dii.  wiiriM'il  (.li'iiciiil  (Jiiss  tliat  lie  liiid  Ix'cii  iiilorincd  that  more  tliaii 

.',0(1(1  iiii'ii  liad  l)t'('ii  cmullcd  lor  tin*  invasion  ol' ( 'ciitral  America,  I'linds 

I, 111  lu'cii   suhsciilit'd  to  the  ain<»niit  of  J^-rtO,! >(!(».  arms  had  hccii  piir- 

!i;iM'(l,  and  ovritnivs  wvw  bciiiu'  ma(U'  to  propiiflors  ol'  shiiipiiio  for 

,1' lr;iiis|u»it  of  the  foicc  to  the  scene  of  action.' 

Oil  tiic  lOtli  of  No\enilier,  Wallicf  was  aiiesied  at  New  Orleans  on  a 
inn;:!'  of  \  iohitin;;'  tlie  nentralit.v  hiws  of  th«'  I'liited  States. 
Ill' WHS  liehl  to  hail  in  •■:<-,()(>(»  (ahont  CIOO)  to  apjiear  on 
iir  lltli  hn-  examination,  and  he  went  to  sea  on  tlie  following  mornin;;'. 
ill  I'liiharked,  with  •')(•(►  nnarmed  followeis,  in  the  passaof  i)oat  from 
New  Orleans  to  .Mol>ile.  and  in  Mobile  Ila.x  the  party  w«'re  met  by  a 
-!ii;ill  steamer  named  the  Hicks. and  were  by  it  transferred  to  the  I-'ashion, 

ivcr  vessel  of  ;L:reater  e;'!'inity,  with  alionl  (itty  recrnits.  who  Joined 
lit'iii  fioiii  thecit.\  of  .Mobile.  TIm'  I'nited  States(  ioMMiiment  teleuiaphed 
H  rlic  I'edeial  authorities  at  New  Orleans  to  hir«'  a  steamer  tor  the  pur- 
•iiii  ol'  the  e\pe«Ution,  and  empowered  tiiem  al.so  ti.  ise  the  steam  '.'eNC- 
;.ii('iitter  (if  tiuTc^  was  one  on  the  station)  for  tlu'  piir|MirM',  Lord  Na 
iici  asked  (leneral  (  -  hether  any  armed  steam  vessel  of  the  national 
:i;i\v  had   been  ordeict:    ;o   iiroeeed  on   this  dnt\,  ami  was 

'111  ill  teply  that  there  was  no  sneh  Ncs.sel  at  tlu^  dispo.sal 
1  tlic  administration.  AValker  succeeded  in  elfectinj;'  a  landino  for 
iis  liiiiid,  who  oeeiipied  I'ort  Castillo,  bnt  was  himself  interci'pted  by 
III'  roiiiiiiodore  in  <'oinmand  of  a  I'liited  States  .sipiadron,  and  taken 
'1  As|iiitwall  in  a  ship  of  war,  whene*'  h«'  returned  totln^  rniteil  States. 
1;  iltHs  not,  liowever,  appear  tliat  any  le,L;al  proeeedinys  were  taken 
i;riiiiist  liiin  lor  hi.s  open  «U'lis«n('('  of  the  law.  if  .so,  they  could  not 
liavt'  been  very  eflicacioiis,  as  he  set  to  work  to  pr«'pare  for  another  expe 
'litiuii  on  ii  larycr  .scale,  and,  in  May,  1S.")S,  the  Presidents  <»1  Nieara^Mia 
iml  Costa  liica  appealed  to  the  protection  of  intcrnatiomd  law  and  ol 
1   iiiii'.  Mnoland,  and  Sardinia  in  an  ollieial  deei'ee : 


I 


1>I\   V^.  /(    1<  (    //((((   f~.'i.-. 

V'liis,  i^ri'sidi'iits  dcs  di'iix   ri'iuilduiiirs  df  \icaian!i;i  <  t   di- Costa  K'ifi : 
'  uiisiiii  rant  oii'iiDi'  nous  flic  invasion  di-  Ililnistii'iNaiiii'iiraiiis  iiK'na)  c 

'  iiiiincaii  1  ,\nii'i  i(|iii'  (  ciitralc  mi  |trt'|uili If  toiitcs  lis  lois  di\  incs  ct    ,m ,.„,„i  < 

iiimiii,..., .  '.Ml  .viii.PHii. 

'  'innitliianl  i|iii'  rAini-riiiiir  Cciitrali',  I'puisri'  jiar  liois  aiis  di'  <..'.ii<'i  •<•  est  dans  fiin- 

^''iiiicc  di'  sr  di-li'iidrr  sans  Ic  coiu'oiirs  di'  ri'.iiro)ii'  ; 

'  "ii>iil(raiit  i|ii'iinr  di'lilii'i'ation  coinnH'iici'T  df-.  d<ii\  -^onv  iriii'iiiriits  di-  Nicarajjiia 
'  '  <i>*t:i  I'ii'a,  a  mis  solfiinrlli'inrnt  ics  dnix  ii'|iiil)lii|ih's  son-  la  )>rnl<-«'tion  Ar  la 
■  -iiiri-,  ill-  r.\nnli't»-ni-  i-t  dt-  la  SardaiKni' : 

'  <Mi>iili  lant,  i-nlin,  qiir  li-  pi-ril  i-st  iminini-nt.  i-t  iju'il  i-st  ur^riit  di-  la  roiijiiri-r  sans 
"i  inlii- I'l-ll'il  di's  mrsiiri-s  i|iii- ITS  trois  piiissaiiri's  proti  <  trn-i-s  iii;ii'roiit  a  pro|ios  di- 
■■.'iiiln-: 

I'liiinitiis  pli'ins   poiivoirs  a  .M.  l'i''li\    Mi'll>  di k  riaiiiri    en   iioln-   iiom    li-  cDiirour* 

•  iii<'iliiit  dr  toiiH  h-s  liiUiiiM'iitH  ill-  ^iKM'i'i-  <-uro| lis  i|ii'il  ponrra  iriiroiitK-i' : 


'  iiiii-lioiidtiiii-  rrspici  inn  CiHitrtM  Ann-lira,  l'r<-«i-iilrd  tn   l';irliaiin'iit  J-'CiO.     Lord 
•  !"'  Ill  ili-iK-ral  Ca.s.H.  ( )i-tolM-r '.».  K-T. 


f 


tm: 


1  i    ■  ■     •- 


|:'  Ai  '■• 


v.' 


4' 

\  i. 

I 


■|, 


** 


252 


TRKATV    OF    WASHINGTON. 


[:{!>]         *Ti(Mliarj;i'«>iissjM'rial»'m«Mi>  dosollicitorroiivoi  ii  San  .liiaii  tlfl  Nurtr  iriim, 
(liMix  ItatiiiuMits  «lc  la  Htation  frain.aist".  dcs  Aiitilli-.s; 
Et  iiii'ftdiis  Ics  (Umix  ioi>ii)»li<|iU'.s  »l(»  Costa  lii<a  i-f  ilii  \irar;)<jfna  et  rAiiu  iic|iii.  ( ,  . 
tral<!  toutc  <'iiliri»'  sctiis  Ha  j{aiai)ti<' »lii  droit  »l«'s  {reus  cmoprciis,  t-t  <lf  la  lini>lai 
>|n'('ial<'  ('•<li<'ti'<'  colli rt'  Ics  )iirat*-H  yX  Irs  boiicaniors, 

Lonl  XniJiiT,  in  tli<'  iioto  to  (lonoial  Cuss,  previously  rcfcrnd  to.  Ihm 
conuiH'iitcd  oil  tlio  ruinous  <'ons('«(uenc«'s  to  tliosc  nations  of  tlic  Hlilni^ 
terinji:  attacks  to  whit-li  they  wt'iv  (»xj)ose<l  fioni  tiic  l^nitt'd  States. 

"  It  isohvions,"  he  saiti,  *'that  the  most  eoniprehensive  leeonciliatin; 
of  C(»sta  Kiea,  and  Niearafjua,  aeeonipanied  by  the  nvestablishint'iit  m: 
the  transit  service  hy  a  respectabh'  company,  uinhM  the  auspices  ot  tin 
United  States  or  lOnjiland,  or  both,  wouhl  still  be  inoperative  toi  tin 
welfare  of  those  countries  if  they  shoidd  continue  to  la!»()r  under  iijiin, 
hensions  of  invasion.  It  is  superlluous  to  enlar/^e  upon  the  caliiiiiitu> 
wliich  the  states  in  cpu'stion  have  experieiu-ed  from  civil  war  ami  tiii 
eijiii  advent uiers.  Of  the  nativ«>  population  not  less  than  lu.oiid;,; 
computed  to  liaAc  perished  in  the  contlicts  of  the  last  two  years,  whi:, 
more  than  (l.(M>t>  straufters  have  sacrili(!ed  their  lives  in  the  prosccutinn 
of  criminal  or  visionary  aims.  The  (lestructiou  of  property,  tin-  >ii. 
pension  of  industry,  the  sacritice  of  ei\  ili/ation.  virtue,  and  liiij»iiiiic-», 
the  diffusion  of  wrono-  and  sulferin;;'  incidental  t(>  such  a  stru.^i^lc.  iu- 
nu)re  easily  ima^^ined  than  described." 

(leneral  Cass,  in  a  note  to  .Mr.  Lamar,  the  representative ol'  the  I'liii  ; 
States  in  Central  Anu-rica,  <lated  the  L'otli  of  duly.  IS'iS,  dcfcmlr:!    i 
action  (»f  the  (ioxcrniiU'Ut  and  its  ollicers; 

'I'lial  nnl:i\\riil  wailil.c  i'iilcr|irisi's  liavs'  lici-ii  cairifil  un  iVuni  tlic  I'liilcil  Sia:>- 
•  'oiii|M)M>il  ol  |icisoiis  t'roiii  (liUcrfiit  coiiiilrii-s,  a;iaiiif*l  tin-  tt  rrilorv  ol'  Xirai;ii;ii.i.  • 
not  to  lir  (li'liictl.  Iillt  (liirili!;  tin-  wliolf  i»ro<j;ii'ss  ol'  tlusr  illr;4al  I'lt'orts,  the  (liiviii 
iiK'iit  i'S  this  roiiiilry  lias  laiilil'iillx'  in'rloniii'il  llirdiilx  iiii|io>i'd  i(|ioii  il  liy  tlii-la»- 
as  wril  tiiroiijili  )iiililic  itroclainalions  anaiiist  siidi  fiitri|)riscs  ax  li,s  y:iviii,f  tii 
lU'crssaiN  diii'ctioiis  to  llic  |iio|(cr  oliicnx  to  pii's  cnl  tli"ir  or;;aiii/atioii  aiwl  diMit 
nir,  as  liv  iiiv  okiiii;  tlir  act  ion  <d'  t  III'  judicial  t  liUiinaU.  ami  also  li\  t  In-  ('iii{ili>v  iiiiiit..! 
its  iia\  al  I'l'ici'. 

it  is  iiiiii.'(('ssar>  lo  >ni)|h>rl  tli('-.r  assertions  l(\  detailed  ]oo:(l'>.  'I'lii'S  aie  a-  \ii" 
known  in  Costa  Ifiea  and  Nicaiauna  as  he- e.  s  inn  ■limes,  indeed,  o-\  iii'.;  to  tiu'  ili  li-  ' 
of  (troof,  it  lias  not  lieili  in  tlie  power  of  the  (Jov  ellllll'lll  to  airesi  I  ileM-  e\|i.ilitii';iv 
Itnt  I'Ncll  when  its  rxertions  lia\c  not  sneeeeded  in  l»l'e\  eiitinji  llieir  deji. II  line,  till . 
have  been  I'aii'ly  and  jiciicralfv  siieeessrallv  ilirceleil  t  i  incseiil  ir-eiiroic  ■mi'iilxil'u,' 
and  iiialei  i.i!  !'iom  leMcliiiij;  the  ad\  eiitiirers  w  no  had  idiidcd  !  he  \  ieilane  'of  ili-  niii  •  >• 
of  tlii^  law.  »  -  ■  - 

Itnt  the  presidents  of  tlii'se  re|iiiUrn's  deal  in  spccilie  I'aets  as  W(dl  as  in  nine  j;imiiI;i. 
allf^iatioi.s.  'i'hcy  clmrjie '•  that  the  (ioverimi'iit  of  tln'  I'liileil  States  ha-,  aii-iinlin; 
to  ollieial  I'epiirls  maile  to  that  of  Co-it  a  K'iea  l>y  its  minister  plenipoteiitiaiN  a  I  \\.\-\- 
iiijiton,  dc.dareil  it  was  nllerl.v  powerless  to  pievenl  pa^t  a;tem;its  l»y  th  •  lilihii^tiiv 
or  to  protect  the  iieiilralit.\  ofCeiitral  .Vm-iiea,  owiim  lo  tin'  insiitliiieney  ol  tli  ■  law- 
(d"the  liiit'd  Stales  on  this  head." 

'I'his  aeeiisatioii  r:  wholly  without  roiindation.     NH  sneli  decdaiatioii   w  as  ever  nn 
l)y  the  (iovei'Miueiil  oi'  the  t'nited  Slates,      It  would  have  heen  an  aet  at  once  nllatu;! 
and  (d"  I'alsit.N.     As  to  the    lilliciilties  in  the  enlorc!  meiit  ol    tli[»,e   laws.  tlic\  air  ni 
denied,  and  have  eiveii  iniicli  Ironlile   to  the  (lovei  nim-iit  in  the  ett'orls  u  lia^  iiiiil< 
carry  t  hem  into  eltect  :  Init  that   they  arc  pnwerfss.  or   hive  proved  so,  no  one.  a. 
ont  of  the   I'niled  Stales,  has  a    rijj;ht    to  assert.     The  npresentativ  es  id'  tin- Ciiilia 
.Vmerican  States  may  Ik!  called  on   a-;    witnesses  that,  in   all  ea«.es  where  tln-y  li''^' 
%\\v\\   iiiforination  to  the  (iovernmeiil   that    mililai.v  expeditions  anaiiist   that  it'!:i<' 
Were  aliont  to  he  iinderlakeii,  measures  have   lieen    iiiiniediaieiy  adopted  to  pii-^ 
their  success,  and   to  arrest    and  piiiiisli   the  olteiideis.     Soinei  .ui's   tln-se  ciloits 
failed,  ow  iiii;'  to  causes  not  w  illiiii  the  control  of  the  Coveruntf-nt,  and  -.oiiieiniir- 
have  lieeii  sncccssfnl. 

(JetuMal  Cass  at  the  same  time  denied  that  a  fresb  invasicui  \iis  ^ 
paiin;i.' 


Corrertpoiideiice  respecting;  Contra!  America,  presented  lo  Parliament  Is'iiii.  |ih."?t?'." 


("OrXTER    CA.SE    01'    C.KEAT    HRITAIN. 


2.Ki 


tf  iriiii  II 

Irl'lipli'  (  , 


V(l  to,  1i;m 

lilt'  tilihib 

oiiciliiitin: 
isliiiiiMit  i>: 
•ick.-s  of  rill' 

vc  for  tin 
idcr  ;\\i\>\<: 

(-iiliiiiiitii'> 

III'  aiiil  {<■] 

KMMdiiii, 

t'lirs,  \\ii!:i 

n'(>Sl'C|ltin! 

y.  till'  sii- 

lliljt|lil|r>>, 

till'  I'liit'ii 
■f('inl.'!l  -1. 


'mii-4  >i.i;'- 
Niiaiimii.i.  ■ 

,  till'    (illVi  il, 

liy  tin-  la«v 

_\-  ;riviii:t  ti.' 

iiimI  il'inct 

lll>lliVll|i  lit' 

:iri'   II-  V.I 

lli.'.lu.  • 
Ali.'iliii";  ■ 

ll.llllirr.  !!:■ 
iiiiil>  III  II ' 
if  I  If  nil-  ■   ■ 

III  ire  jiVli.  1,. 
;|N,  ili'l'iHilllr. 

r>  III  Wii-I- 

•  lilllill-Ii:- 
y  (if  111"  l;i«- 

,1^  CVIT  lllf 

•,■  of  liiiu;t 

||ir>  nrr  li'l 

Ills  111  (ill 

III!  tllir.  H.  ' 

if    till-  l.lil  ■' 

IT   tll-'V    111" 

t   tiiiii  ifi;i' 

i-il    to  I'll 

liiiii- 
iiiiiimii" 


oil  -.VU--  " 


I'll".  !• 


Xotwitlistainliiif?  this  assuranro,  Walker's  iireparatioiiscoiitimuMl  uii- 
listurbi'il  mitil  he  was  ajjain  on  tho  eve  of  setting  out  with  reeiuited 
•„iecs,  when,  on  the  .'JOth  October,  I'resident  liuchanan   issued  a  proc- 
iiiiiitioii  very  simihir  to  that  jtublished  in  the  time  of  Lope/ : 

Wlit'iiiis  iiiforiiiation  iiiiM  ii'inlicd    tiic,  fioni    soiin-cs  which  I  cimnot  ilisn-jrard,  that 
iiain  jii'isoiis  ill  viohttioii  of  tlic  iifiitrality  laws  of  the  rnitctl  States,  art)  inakinf;  a 

1(1  :itt('iiiiit  to  st't  on  foot  a  military  cxpcditioii  witliiii  tlii-ir  tonitory  ajjaiiist  Nica- 
i^iiii,  a  foioifiii  statt!  witli  wliich  tlu-y  an-  iM'acc.  In  oidci  to  rai.sf  money  for  ei|ni)i- 
,, .";;  iiiul  iiiiiintainin<;;  tliis  expedition,  ]»eisons  eonneeted  tlieri^wilh,  as  J  liave  reason  to 
»!m'vi'.  have  issued  anil  sold  lionds  iiiid  other  eontruets,  ]>led<rin;{  the  jmldie  lands  ol 
\  i.iriiyiia  and  the  tninsil  lonle  tlifoii;;!!  its  teiritory  as  ji  seenrity  <or  their  red<-inption 
.':.|  riillilhlielit. 

n,i;  liO'tile  tlesijiii  of  this  ixpeditiiMi    is    rendered  manifest    ity  the  fact    that  these 

liiiiiils  and  eoiitraets  ean  lie  <d'iio  possihle  value  to  tliitir  holders  unless  th*'  pres- 

I  '    iMl  jiovernmetit  of  Niearayiia  shall  he  *oveilhrowii  hy  force.     lU'sides,  the  envoy 

ixtrioidinaiy  and    minister   ]dcnipotentiary  <d'  that  <roveinment  in  the   Inited 

v.iii ">  liM'i  issued  a  notice,  in  ]inrsiiance  ot'  his    instrnetions,  dated  on  the  '^Ttli  instant, 

•  iliiililiii-i  the  citi/.eiis  or  suhjects  of  any  nation,  except,  passen^icrs  inteixlin;;  to  jiro- 

..il  tliroii;;h  N'icaranna  o\er  the  transit    route  I'rom  occiui   to  ocean,  t(»  enter  its  terri- 

,i\  witlntiit  a  re;>iilai'  pa.^spoit,  si;>ned  l»y  the  proper  minister  or  consnl-jicneral  of  the 

jmlilic  roident  in  the  eonntiy  fnim  whence  they  shall  havede)iaited.     Such  )»ers(in>. 

:h  tlii>  cNcejition.  "  will  he  sio)iped  and  coinpelleil  to  return  hy  th  sam<^  eii!iveyaiice 
Ml  iiKilv  them  to  the  eoiinlry."  P'rorn  these  ciicum^tances  the  inference  is  ii'irsistihle 
111  iHiN(iii>  eMffaned  in  1  his  cxjiedilion  will  leave  the  Inited  Slates  with  hostile  jiiir- 
..!.(> :i^aiii>l  Nicaiajfiia.  They  <'aniiot  under  the  jrnise  v  hich  they  have  a.ssiitn  'd  that 
••ny  arc  i"aceful  einioiaiii>,,  cKiiceal  their  real  intentions,  and  especially  when  they 
.:,!«  ill  .iilvance  that  their  landin;;  will  he  resisted,  and  can  only  hi'  accomplished  hy 

:  IMl |iii\vi'iin<i  force.  'J'iiis  expcdieiil  was  sllceessfully  resorted  to  previous  to  the 
1.;  r\|icililioii,  and  the\essel  in  which  those  eon'posinj;-  it  were  conveyed  to  N'ica- 
:i;!ia  (ililaiilcd  a  cleai'ance  fnuil  the  collector  of  the  port  ofMohile.  Altllotl;r|i,  ;iftei'  a 
iivliil  iNiiiiiiiiation.  no  arms  or  miinilions  of  war  were  discovered,  yet,  when  they 
riivcil  ill  Nicaraj'Ma.  they  were  loiind  to  he  armed  and  e(|iii[iped.  and  imnieiiiately 
iiiilllirllccd  hostilities. 

riic  tcaiicis  of  former  illc;{al  ex)>edilioiis  of  the  .-ame  character  have  openly  expressed 
;;.iii  iiitciiliou  to  renew  hostilities  a;{aiii>t  .Nieara;;ua.  One  of  them,  who  has  alri'ju'.y 
•nil  tvvici)  c\pelled    from  Niearai-iia,  has    invited.  lliniii;;h    the    piitdie   newspajiers. 

.\ riciiii  citizens  to  emi^'i'ate  to  that  re|inldic.  and  has  desi<;nated  .Mohilc  as  the  place 

;  iciiili/viiiis  and  departure,  and  San  .liian  ilcl  Norte  as  the  port  to  which  they  are 
''iiiiiil.  This  jicrsoii.  who  has  renounced  his  allei;iancc  to  the  I'nited  .stales,  and  claims 
•iiIk  rrcsideiil  (if  Nicaraitna.  has  j^iveii  notice  lo  the  collector  of  the  port  of  Mohile 
ii;it 'Jiio  iir  :i(ii»  of  these  (•iiii;rianls  will  he  prepared  to  cmliirk  from  that  port  aliout  the 
ildillr  (if  Novemher. 

Kdrllicsc  and  other  •;(>od  reasons,  a;iil  for  the  purpose  of  sa\  inj;  Anu'iican  citi/eiis 
Will  may  have  hecn  honestly  ilcluded  into  the  hclief  that  they  are  alioul  loiiroceed  to 
I  N'<ai'a<;iiii  as  peaceful  emi<;ranls,  if  any  such  there  he,  t'rom  the  disastrous  eonsei|Uenecs 
•wliicli  they  will  he  exposj'd,  1,  .lames  Huehanan,  rresidciit  of  the  Inited  States, 
:i;iv(' lliiiii;;lil  it  tit  to  issue  this  my  proclamation,  enjoiiiiii;;'  u]ion  all  oDicei's  of  the 
I'li'Viiiiiiiciii.  civil  and  military,  in  their  respective  spheres,  lo  he  vi;;ilant,  active,  and 
.iitliliii  ill  siipprcssiiij;  these  ille;ial  enterpii.ses.  an  I  ill  earr\  in;;  out  their  standinjf  in- 
•':iMiiiiis  lo  thai  elli'ct  :  exhort  I  n]n-  all  ^ood  cili/eiis.  hy  their  respect  for  the  laws,  and 
■    iinnard  for  tlu'  |ie,iee  and  welfare  of  the  eiuinlry,  to  aid  the   elloils  of   the   puiili*' 

iMiiiriiics  ill  Hie  disehaiKe  of  their  duties. 

Tlic  ",standinj>'  instrnetions"  whi<'h    tlie  oniceisjtf  tlie  (roNernnient 

[^'•'iv  oiijoiiied  to  carry  out  wtu-e  the  instructions  to  use  "  due  (Iili<r«Miee,'" 

tile  ciniihir  of  IS.")?  ;  but  notwithstandinjj;  the  efforts  wiiich  it  is  to  be 

jjiri'siinu'd  they  inaiU'  to  exerc^ise  it,  a  party  of  N\  alker's   tilil»i«.sters  em- 

'•"t"*'  at  M«)l>il('  in  the  sailinji  schooner  Susan,  in  December,  l.Sr>S,  with 

«  h  aijince,  on  the  jn'elense   of  beinj;'  bound  on  a  iioastinjj;'  voya;;e. 

Miccrssliil  attempt  was  math'  by  tlie   revenue  cutter  to  intercept 

iiiii  th«')'e  seems  on  this,  as  on   the  former  occasion,  to  have  been 

1>  of  wiir  witii  steam  power  avaihibU'  to  pursue  her,  and  tlie  part\ 

1  til  sea  accordinjily,  and  the  Su.san  was  joined  unijioh'sted  by  tlie 

^iiicii  and  tlie  V.  iisliin;;ton,  with  military  stiucs. 

ill!' i'\p(«dilit»u  afterward  broke  dftwii  from  the  Susan  beiiiy  wrecked. 


\i  '■■ 


2r)4 


TREATY    OF    \VA.SHIN(iTON. 


Wnlkor  taiid  liis  band  tlicn  i)roco(Ml«Ml,  in  ^riivcli,  Is.Vi  , 

la  lH.71     lilt.  /ll'l-  •  I  il  -lil  -i  II 

(aliiornui,  whence  tlieywere  sanl  to  liav<^  intended  t(»!i»iik, 
a  descent  on  INinta  Arenas;  but  tliis  attempt  was  not  ''anied  into  jx, 
cation,  and  Walker  retnrned  to  his  usnal  einph>yinent  of  organ izinjj^.v^ 
peditions  in  the  United  States. 

In  November,  IH'ti),  he,  for  the  third  time,  ehided  the  "dnedilijiciiK 
of  the  Mobile  authorities,  and  an  expedition  set  sail  once  more  frdin  th^r 
port  in  his  old  vessel,  tin  Fashion.  Tiie  Fashion  pat  back  from  want  n; 
stor«*s,  ami  soiiie  of  the  persons  concerned  in  the  expedition  were  ai 
rested  ;  but  there  is  no  report  of  their  havinj?  been  punished,  lie  staitei! 
again  in. Tune,  ISOO,  in  the. John  A.  Ta.\lor,  wasmet  olfKuatan  l>.vaii(ttlie'. 
vesvsel  with  arms,  and  elfected  a  landing  on  the  Central  American  (•fta>t 
J  lis  <'areer  was  brought  to  a  close  by  his  being  shot  at  Truxillo  in  Se[> 
tember,  l.S(J(>. 


TENIAN   RAIDS    A«iAI.\ST   CANADA. 


£if 


The  first  soci»'ty  formed  in  the  United  States  for  i)urpost's  hostile  ti 
(Ireat  llritain  appears  to  have  been  tiie  "  Irish  l{cpiil»li(,i! 


)ri«li  It.-piihl,. 

Ml.  mei.  " 


Union. 


e;i, 


tr.ihl  A  111  Si 


rhii-«i-tt«  Kmi- 


Th«>  coursi^  of  allairs  in  Ireland  pn  vented  the  "  Irish  licpiihii 
Union"  fr»)m  carrving  out  any  projects  which  it  nmy  have  entcrtaiiiei!. 
and  it  was  su(!ceeded  in  18.")  by  the  "  Massachusetts  hi>li 
Immigrant  Aid  SiM-iety,''  whi«*h  held  its  first  iionvcntioii  ;i! 
r>oston,  on  the  11th  of  August  of  that  year,  and  uiuler  whose  aiispin- 
secret  so(;ietics  were  established  in  ditVerent  |)arts  of  the  United  Stato 
iimmv  s„i.t>.  These  secret  sctcietic's  continued  under  various  names, 
'"'''  nntil,  in   isr»1>,  they  wt're  leconstitutcil  as  the  IMio'iiix  Sc 

ciety.     The  civil  war  interrupted  their  progress,  but  in   1S(J;J  tlicy  ii;:,iii: 
K.MiM,  iin.th.  r.  promiiKMitly  appeared  as  the  "Fenian    Urotherhood"  at  ;i 

' '  public  uu'cting,  held  at  Chicago,  in  November  of  lliat  veai 

|ll|  *Tliis  meeting  was  reported    to  have   been  attended  In  H"' 

M.-..IMU  ;,t  iiii.i-  •l'''*'fi"**''^«    K'pi'csi'ntiiig   •circles,"'   including   twelve  Imi: 
''•'"'*"•  military  and  naval  circles. 

The  sec«)nd  annual  i'ongrcss  of  the  'Fenian    Urotherhood'' was  liciii 


Al     t'in<  iiin.it  I 


at  ('ihcin!.ali    in   .lannary,  iStM,  wlu'u    their  president  di 
clar«'d  that  thcv  wvw  "\irtuall.vat  war"  with  i'2nglan(l,aiii. 
spoke  of  "this  .American  institution  <'allcd  the  Fenian  nrotlierliood." 
.\  congress  of  the   I'enian    jiiotlicrliood    iiu't    at   IMiilade'|dii;M»n  tin 
I..,.   ..I   ►.,i.:,„   1^*1'    *''    Ociohrr,    lSt;,">,    ;iiid    r«'solv('d    upon    the    issue  e 
' ""'-  "  I'cnian  bonds,"  and  the  establishment  of  the  Irish  repiilili' 

at  New  York.  'I'lic  head ccnlcr,  as  Im'  was  pic\ionsIy  called,  of  tin 
Urotherhood  was  now  st\Ic«l  president  of  the  Irish  republic;  tlieexecu 
tive  council  entitled  thems<'lves  •senators."  with  a  prw 
den!  ;  a  house  was  hired  at  a  rental  of  «l,'-'0();  sceretaii"^ 
<d'the  tieasiii\,ot  war,  ^:e..  weie  appointed,  and  tlie  ln>! 
iepubli<'  was  <leelaied  to  lu'  foiirided  at  New  York.  The  bonds  had  I 
prepared  for  the  !''enians  lt\  the  "  ( 'ontiiuMital  I'.aidv  Note  Coinpaii,. 
New  Voik,"  and  were  stamped  "  ollic«'  of  tlie  seei'ctiry  of  tln^  trea- 
They  wei'c  «h'C(uated  with  some  emltlems  and  inscril)ed  : 

It  is  iiiTt'liv  (I  rtilii'd  lli;ii  till'  liisli  if|Mililie  is  iiiilelitiHl  initu 


■  '•IiiMkIiiim  hi       >'l 

till*  Irish  n*iiiitili<  ,il 
Nrw  York, 


H'c; 


iir\ 


.  Ill  ln':»rr 

in  till'  MINI  iif  ( li'iO  iIiiIImi  .,  reilcee     lile  six  iiiiiiitlH  after  'he  iieUimwleil^jiiii'iil  of  flu' '' 
depi'iiileiui' iiT  till'  lri-*li  Malinii,  with  iiit 'rest  I'ln  n   lii«  ilate  hi'iei)!' iiieiii  .ive,  :il  ^i'*  I' 
lile  oil   lueHi'iiiatiiiii  of  tlii*  Uiml   at   tin-  ireii-mv  ol'  lln'  Iiislif' 


eeiil.  pi'i  aiiiiiltii.  pasalile  on   |ii'eHriiial  mi 
|iiilili 


Irish  Anierieun.  i'ebniary  II,  ^^HK^. 


f  lipn^f  (ip^T 


COUNTER    CASK    (»F    (JRKAT    BRITAIN. 


255 


Asa  int';i.sun'  of  im'cantioii  ajjaiiist  thv  possihh*  liostilo  iiu'iusioiis  of 
IVnians  which  wore  bt'iii};  constantly  tliicat«Mic(l,  the  Canadian  jjovcrn- 
iiu'iit  was  conipclhMl  to  <!all  out  for  a<'tivc  service  nine  c<»ni|»anies  of  the 
jiroviiicial  militia  in  Novenilier,  l.Sti.l,  and  to  station  tlieni  ah)n^  the  most 
,\|ios(m1  parts  of  tlie  frontier.' 

On  t!ic  -d  of  January,  ISiUJ,  a  iMMiian  convention  was  hehl  at  New 
V()rk,wiii<'li  histed  for  nine  days,  and  at  wiiicii  a  <h't.u-hnu'nt  of  tiie  tMttli 
State  iiiilitia,  numheiinH;  twenty-two  nu'U,  aiv  stated  to  iiave  a«'ted  as 

M'litinel"*- 

At  a  nieetinjj  at  iJutfahi,  on  the  liOth  of  January,  "(leiu'iai  Sweeiu'V 
|ilc(lj;ed  himself,  if  sup|>orte<l,  that  before  next  May  he  would  conijuev  a 
iritaiii  territory  \ipon  which  tlu^  Irish  tla<>'  should  We  planted, and  which 
>|i;ill  l)t>  made  the  base  of  operati(Mis  a<;)iinst  ICn<4lauil  lor  the  liberation 
,il  Ireland."  "Colonel  Ifobcrts  |U'onused,  within  niiu'ty  tla.Ns,  to  havts 
jlic  ;,'reen  llaj""  support«'d  by  the  };''''utest  aiiiiy  of  Irishmen  up(»n  which 
•he  SUM  ever  shoue."-' 

At  another  meetinj;'  at  Pittsburj^li,  Sweeney  saitl : 

\Vi' iHiVf  iiiailf  lar^c  )iiircliiiscs  of  jiiiiis  and  war  inatriia!.     IT  ytm  aif  incpanil  to 
<t;uiil  liv  us,  \vt^  proiiii.sf  that,  bi't'iin-  tlir  .siiiiinii-rsiiti  kisses  tlic  liill-tops 
i||ivljiiiil,a  rav  of  lio|)e  will  fj;l,Kl.l.-ii  rvfiy  tin.'  Iiisli  li.art.  for  l»y  that  ^•■.^•n^..K 

mill' wr  ^hall  liav(M-oii<|ni-rf*l,  anil  eol  lio.sta<i('s  for  our  Wravf  patriots  at  lionit'.  'flii> 
,;nrii  lliij;  will  lie  tlyinj;  intlciicndcnlly  to  fucdom's  lnti/c,  and  we  will  liavt-  a  Itasc  of 
'{ii'ratioiis  trotn  which  we  ran  not  only  t'niancipatf  Irrliuid,  Init  also  annihilate  I'.ua- 
aiid.    Jf  yon  Hnpjiort  ns,  I  pledge  my  name,  fame,  property,  and  life  to  this  li»dy  eanse.' 

The  American  newspapers  were  full  of  accounts  of  the  fermei^t  anuuij; 
the  Iiisli.  The  New  York  Worhl  of  March  .".  said,  "The 
IViiiaii  ftnuls  are  dispn)n(Mtioned  to  any  pacili*-  olijects. 
TiK'yiiiean  war  or  they  mean  nothiuj;-.  The  houi'st  ctuitributors  suppose 
tlicv  a!'' turnishin<;  the  siiu'ws  of  war.  If  the  receivers  of  the  money 
(Id  not  iiiteiul  to  apply  it  to  this  object,  tlu'y  are  a  set  of  sharpcr.s,  prac- 
ticiiij,'  on  the  cretbdity  of  tlu'ir  followers,  to  levy  a  re\  enue  bu'  theii-  own 
list'.  If  they  really  nu'an  war,  if,  as  is  yiven  out,  they  contemplate  the 
invasion  of  Canada,  this  is  a  serious  business,  which  cliallen;it'S  the 
iliiMi^llitl'iil  attention  of  all  Irishiiieii  and  all  Anieii<-an  citi/cns." 

Tlial  the  Feinans  ditl  mean  war  was  as  plain  as  sp»'«>ch  c(udd  make  it. 

The  "  'rish  Aiiu'ricair'  r<'portc<l  that,  at  a  mcetiri.u  at  Saint  I. on  is.  <  i(>n 

iiiil  S\ve('n«'y  had  anuoiuuu'tl  that  "considerable  pmchascs  of  arms  ami 

waniiatei'ials  luul  already  been  made,  a.ul  that  lar;;e  (Muitracts  tor  the 

[Mine  had   beei>  entered   into."     IJoberts   spoke  w  itli(*(il   an   attempt  at 

|ilis;;iiise.     "Now,"'  he  said,  "there  is  but  one  outlet   to  liclaml   i»y  an 

niieil  force,  and  that  is  on  a  section  of  this  cotitineiit,  where,  too,  the 
iKii^'lisli  power  to<lay  I'liles  siiprenu'.  and  that  sertion,  if  il  docs  not 
b"iiu'  iiiuuediately  bem>ath  the  inllueiicc  ol  American  power,  must  bt^ 
jiiiadc  to  conu' into  the  hands  of  the  Irish  people;  Ibrtheoidy  way  we 
|iiiii  strike  at  I'iU^lish  ((unmrrce  is  lo  have  a  place  where  we  can  have  a 
,i;ovenimeht  of  our  own,  even  In  tore  it  should  be  reco;;iii/ed  virtu- 

■j     ally  on  liish  soil.     *\\ho  will  say  that  Andrew  Johnson  will  not 

ieco;;ni/,e  the  Irish  rcpultlic,  evj'ii  if  it  should  be  only  in  name,  as 

ll'iii;;  as  we  ha\e  s(ul   that  \\v  can  claim  as  our  own  .'     it  is  necessary  to 

'.i\e  some  base  Irom  which  we  can   ,seud  aid  to  our  brothers  ,\lio  are 
|MiiiMjr|J!,„  i;„.  iii),.|.fy.     w,.  want  a  place  fnuu  which  we  cm  sentl  (uit 


Il.i,.|    I.I    l-XH'i. 


'•'tMri's|Miiidenee  relating  to  t he    I'enian  insasion,  laid  Ijefoie   the   Canadian  i'ailia- 
•''.■lillle,  lf-(i',t,  p.  l:t',». 

Niw  Vnrk  World,  .lannary  'J7,  r^»>(i. 

\Vtiilil,  I'elirnarv  '-'". 


1  « 


«!>, 


25»; 


TKEATV    OK    W.\s||IX«,TOX. 


privatfcrs  ii^aiiist  Kii;;li}>li  conmicri't* :  uiid  by  that  means.  1  think.  • 
i-an  take  eiioii;;li  to  niaiiitaiii  a  •:overiiiiieiit  for  fifty  years  very  lesj^^t 
ably." 

\Variiieetiii;:s  were  also  beM  at  I'ortlaml.  Lima.  (<  Hiio, )  Xew|M»r»,  M; 
ford,  Waterfonl.  aii<l  otlier  phufs, 

liit'ormatioii  baviii<;  n^aclietl  tlie  C'aiiailian  <:overiimeiit  frmn  m.iu 
quarters  .sliowin<r  that  an  inroad  was  imminent,  and  this  iiitorui.uio: 
beinj;  sn|»|M»rte«l  by  {loliee  rejMirts  of  sus|»ii-ions  |K'rsons  having'  lte» 
reco;;niz«'d  eiiterinjr  <'anada  from  the  L'nileil  .States,  as  well  as  l»v  oi*-: 
avowals  at  the  Fenian  publie  nu-etinjrj*.  the  executive  council  pass^^j  „ 
minute  on  the  7th  of  Man-h.  calling  out  for  «luty  UMMHI  of  the  <  ;uia»li.i 
v»lunteers. 

It  was  not  until  the  end  of  May  that  the  Fenian  |ire|iai'iitioii>  wt-r* 
completed.     Stores  of  arms  and  ammunition  had  l»een  |ila<-eil  at  •-<•; 
venient  stations  alon^  thi*  frontier,  and  the  wonl  had  Imh'Ii  ^iv«*ii  tor.* 
attack.     <  >u  the  -»l>t  of  May  the  Fenians  lN';;an  the  march  :  deta<;huiHi"« 
of  L'oo  and   UMi  men.  calling;  themselves  railway  lalMinrs  on  their  way  • 
the  West.  lM-;;aii  to  arrive  at  Duttahi  and  Saint  Albans  fixjui  tin-  laC' 
towns.     15y  the  evcnin;;  of  that  day  a  Innly  of  Fenians,  estiiiiateii  .i 
upward  of  1,m"»:»,  ha:l  n-ache*!  iSiifTilo.  and.  o?!    th,*    miirniif^  of  th«- K 
of  .lunc.  7."»»  of  them  <-n>ssi««l  over  to  F«»rt  Erie,  on  the  op|Nisiti-  iuiik- 
the  Niairani  lliver.     What  then  followetl  is  succinctly  descnlu'd  m 
dispatch  lV«!:u  L)nl  Monck  of  the  ith.  pub!ishi*«|  in  the  **  corrcspuiKtf ri< ' 
respectin;;  thf  recent    Ffuian   a::;n''*>>iou  u|n»n  r'.inadi."  prcsciitcl  ; 
Pailianiciit  in  Feltniary.  I'><i7.  which  contains  a  full  ac^iiunt  of  all  ih., 
took  place  in  Tanada: 

<i«»\  J.IINMI  \l    H«H  ~l.  IMUltra.  .Initt  4.  I"**. 

Sii:  :  Ki'ti-iiiiiu  ttt  iiiy  ati-iMti-li  ••r  tilt-  Nt  of  .lim*-.  I  Lavf  tli*- Ii<in<>r  t<i  sl.-i!*-.  for  v" 
intiii'iiiatioii.  thai  fli«-  ImmIv  *tt  Ki-iiiaii  <'i>ii'>|iiniior»  who  <-r<»>.'<*-tl  tli<-  fnnitD-r  fn>iu  i:  ' 
falii  to  I'ort  Krif  on  ilw  inominv  of  Frnlay.  .Iiine  I.  |»rw»vt-il  t"  !•••  Ix-tweeu  "«••  or:*' 
iiifii,  ami  Mfni  to  liavt*  In^n  wfll  ami<-«l. 

I  hail  |>ri'Vion>ly  liail  iiifurmalion  that  ^ini**  Mn-h  a:t>-iii|tt  wmhI^I  shortly  \t>-  m^.- 
atiil  -1  iiaity  of  voliiiit*^r«  bail  Im.-«-ii  statioiwal  at  I'urt  ('oiburii*-  in  aiili<-ip.'iriiin  ••!  . 
attaik. 

1  liavf  not  yi-t  liad  lim*-  tn  receive  f*ffi<-ial  aeroniits  of  tL«-  luilitarA-  oj»trrati«iu<,  U/ 
tniiii  t)-li-<:i:i|>hi<-  rr|iort.-«  whi<-b  havr  n'aclH-<l  iii>-  I  am  alilt-  togivt-  the  follow iugiUt' 
UKiit  of  what  iN-t-urrril.  whicb  I  tbink  may  W  •Muuileml  autb<-iiti<-. 

lniin«-<liati-ly  on  ibt-  r»-«-«-i|it  of  th«-  int<'lli;:enrt-  of  tb<-  invasioD.  Major  «o-ni  ml  N*!- 
imslu'il  on  by  rail  toL"hi|i|«*-wa  a  forte  c«»fi»i«tin^  of  artillery  «n«l  regular  tri«>j>»  nn-.- 
Colonel  I'eaiiK-k.  Kith  regiment.     C'hi|>j>e«ra  is  aliont  nineteen  luilef  fnmi  F<>ri  Kr 
and  tln-re  is  no  railway  t-imiuinu'eation  Wtween  the  two  plare».     On  arriviii;;  .•iH.D.r- 
pfwa,  Colonel  iVai-'xk  nH»vttl  on  in  the  direi-tion  of  Fort  Krie.     On  the  iu<»min;  •' I 
Satnnlay.  .Inne  "i.  the  IkwIt  of  volnut*-er>i  ••tatii>oe«i  a*  alrea<iy  iuentiou«-<I  at  I'<»it  I  ■ 
l»orn«'  1«-Vt  that  plaee  l»y  rail.  wlii«-h  nin-«  |>araliel  to  the  ^'bore  of  I^ke  Kiir.  and  «' 
in  the  <lircetio:i  •if  Fort  Erie  a.*  far  a.-  a  j»lae«-  eallt-at  liJd^way  :  bere  ihey  I«-l";  fb«-  r» 
way  anil  j>roce«li-«l  ttn  foot,  apiiaxently  with  tbt-  intention  of  ejecting  a  juncti"«Ji ''  ' 
Coioni-1  IVacock  ami  hi-  foree. 

They  I  ante  u|H«n  the  Fenians  eneam|ie«|  in  tbe  l>iL->fa  and  iwuiediately  attackni ;~ 
Imt  were  ontiiunilien-ai  an«l  eoiu|ielk-«l  to  retire  on  fort  Coll*»me.  This  oitum-tl- 
time  on  Satnnlay.  'iA  Jnne. 

Colonel  I'eacoek  in  tbe  mean  tim«-  wa!>  ailvaiieing  in  tlie  direetion  of  Fort  Kri*>  t'l^-'- 
Chip|M«\Ta  alonj;  tbe  luank.-  of  tbe  Niagara  River,  iHit  wa»  not  able  to  reach  thr  f-ni- 
plai-o  iM'fore  ni<;btfall. 

The  Fenian."*.  Iiowever.  ilid  not  await  bi*  arrival,  bnt  recrosseil  tbe  riv«-r  during  : 
ni<rlit  Itetween  the  ^1  and  :td  .lun*-.  to  tite  namljer  of  aljoat  T-Vi*  nieii.  and.  a-  a|'!^''' 
troni  th«-  ar)-omp:inyins  telegram  fn>tn  Mr.  Consul  lieman».  tvere  iuime<Iiatel\  arrt-^.*" 
liy  the  an(ln>rities  of  tb^  I'nited  States.. 

I  am  lia|»|>y  to  i»e  able  to  inform  you  tliat  tbe  oftieers  of  the  l'nite«l  Stale*  Cn'Vt: 
nient  a|i|M-ur  to  have  exerted  theou^flvr^  to  prevent   any  av«iMaue<-  iM-iug  ^iippii'-'i 
the  inva«lt-r>.     I  transmit  copi«»of  tel«-j»raiu«  receiveil  oo  tbL>  sabject  from  Mr.  tV-^ 
Henian.-. 

We  have  sixty-five  itri'*»ner»  in  «.nri«r»*»s*-«»i««o.  who  bavc  l«een  by  my  dirit.tiiHi » •» 
niitted  to  the  toium*»n  jail  at  Toronto  to  await  tiuL 


•  WA'^f i|^,L  I 


COUNTER   CASE    OF   GREAT    BRITAIN'. 


257 


think.  » 
ry  i«'>iHi • 

i«-|M.r».M 

ntiii  in.tii 
iil'ona.ttio; 

IS  liy  ojw: 
il  iiasswl .. 
i^Ciiiiadia: 

itioiix  vrer» 
ivil  at  <-«i. 
iv»*n  ti)r  a; 
L'tarhuiHi"- 
lu'ir  way : 
It  tli«-  lar;- 
•tiiiiatetl  .1 
r  of  thf  U 
iitf  iMnk" 
iciiIhhI  iu 
I'Sitoinifii.- 

IVSjMlif.l  i 

«tt'  all  tli< 


.lum  4.  !-•• 
Stat"',  f'lt  y- 
tiff  fn»iii  ]'  ' 
II  "<«<•  or  :*• 

irllv  \»-  ii;* 
|i:ltlon  tif  1- 

ftatioiiv  !•"■ 

liiVVHl;;>U'- 

••111  nil  Nil" 

(iiai|i'>  a&-- 

•iii  K"rt  Kr 

i\iii;;  attu.^  | 

inoniinf 

;.t  I'oit  I  • 

,ii«-.  a!id«'' 

Iff:  f  hr  ra 

junction  ^  : 

,tta«k«i  ibti 
u«»iirn-«i''"-' 

"ort  Kri>>  tn-: 
lb  th«:  f<.'ra- 

.r  «lurin§  I- 

iid.  a-  m"^" 

iat«-ly  arn^'' 

?tat»  GoTiT 
Ij;  Mll>J»l»^i  ' 

m  >li-  '-^•-^ 
liu^tiou  (» 


Ithink  it  is  on-«litalilo.  l»oth  to  the  inilitary  .iinl  militia  antlioriticH  in  Cniia«ln,  that 
;>T  wt-ii*  ill  a  iM»r»itiiiii  witliiii  twciity-tuiir  lioiirs  aftt-r  tlic  iIlva^il»ll  of  ilic  piovinco,  at 
itwintof  the  ♦•iM-iiiy's  own  m-lt'i'tioii.  to  jilaco  opposit**  to  him  siu-h  a  lorco  a»  com- 
:»!W  hi*  l»r»-<-ipitat<-  n-triMt  witiioiit  •■vcii  risking  an  fiij;amiii(iit. 

I  shall  not  fail  t«>  s«mhI  yon  nioiv  I'nii  particulars  when  I  .sliall  liave  riccivtMl  tho  olli- 
(il  re|><>ns  t'ruui  the  otlictTs  eu^rajrud,  but  thu  inaiii  facts  aru  as  I  liavr  stated  thfiii 

I  havf.  Ac, 
Si;;!!.-.!)  M(»N(K. 

Tbo  vi«iil;un'0  of  the  authorities  of  the  United  States  was  not  aroused 
until  after  the  raid  had  oceiirred,  when  tin*  raitlers  w«'re  slopped  in  their 
Mmit  into  I'niteil  States  territory,  and  the  party,  now  rednt«'d  l»y  loss 
ami  desertion  to  .'•T.'i,  made  i)risoners,  with  O'Neill,   their  N-ader,  and 

their  arms  taken  from  them. 
43]  •The  storesof  arms  at  J'nifalo,  Ofrdenslnirfjh,  and  Saint  Alhans. 
were  also  seized  by  the  L'nitetl  States  distriet  marshals.  On  thr 
.>th  of  .June  the  arrest  of  the  other  Fenian  leaders  was  oi«ler«'tl :  and 
I'll  the  «»th  the  President  issued  a  proclamation  stntinj;  that  it  hatl 
'♦fDiue  known  to  liim  that  certain  evililisposed  persons  had  l»e<;nn  to 
«et  on  foot,  ami  ha«l  provide«l  ami  prepared,  and  were  still  enj;a;;ed  in 
T^ovidin;:  ami  preparinj;  means  for  a  military  expedition  and  ent«'rprise, 
-iiiiii  •-x|HMlitio:i  ami  enterprise  was  to  he  carried  on  from  the  territory 
.iihI  jnrisdicti«»n  tif  the  rnit«'d  States  a;iainst  liritish  territoiy,  antl 
..nthorizinj;  the  T'nited  States  military  forces  and  militia  to  h«'  employed 
-toarrvst  and  prevent  th«'  setting;  on  foot  and  carrying  on  the  expedi- 
ti'>n  and  enterpri.so  aforesaid.'' 

On  the  same  «lay  on  which  this  proclamation  was  signed,  the  Fenian 
r'rs4»ni'is  at  lintfalo  w«'re  released  on  tiieir  own  reco^jnizanci's;  and,  on 
•y  Till.  O'Neill  and  the  two  «>th«'r  principal  leaders  were  also  released 
oD  irail. 

Another  band  of  Fenians  made  a  demonstration  near  Saint  Albans, 
but  retreat e< I  immediately  on  the  appearance  of  a  Canadian  re^ifiment. 

.Several  arrests  were  nnnle  at  Saint  Albans,  ami  elsewhere;  an«l 
Koberts,  the  |)resident  of  the  Feniati  semite,  ami  chief  insii;;ator  of  the 
rjiil,  was  taken  into  custody  at  N«'w  York.  Ilis  exatnination  com- 
mt-nced  on  the  11th  ;  on  the  iL'th  he  was  released  on  parole  :  and  the  dis 
nii-t  attorney  eventnally  aban«loneo  the  proseention,  from  want  of  evi- 
druee.  with  the  intention  of  preferring  an  indictment  before  tho  grand 
jary. 

On  the  2.3il  .Tnly,  the  Ilonse  of  l{epre.sentatives  of  the  T'nited  States 
I<i-s<t*f|  the  lollowinj;  resolntions: 

Lf^oirffi,  That  till-  Ilonst'of  HcpifscTitativir*  nspect  fully  rniiicxt  flu-  rrisidcnt  of  tlu- 
I  &itr«l  >tal>^  to  iir^c  uiMiii  thf  Caiiadirii  aiithoritii's.  and  al>i>  tin-  Ihit  i>li  i^ovcinmfiit. 
;>n-lKi»<-nf  the  Kciiian  prisoii»T>  recently  raptun-d  in  Canada. 

i>«»/rri/.  Tliai  this  House  respe<'tfully  leipu-st  the  I'resiilcnt  to  caiisi'  the  prosooii- 
■•'.i'  !ii<titut*-«i  in  the  I'liiteil  ."^tates  courts  a;!;ainst  the  Fenians  to  l)i  diseoittinuod  if 
:uQi{>atil>Ie  with  the  puMic  interests. 

In  pursunnee  of  the  second  of  the.se  resolntions,  tlie  Attorney-Gon- 
«al  iii.structed  the  di.strict  attorney  at  IWitfalo  to  abandon  the  Fenian 
i-fvuswiitions  there,  and  they  were  abandoned  accordin;iIy. 

Thv  pru.seciitiim  was  al.so  withdrawn  in  tho  eases  of  Sweeney,  Spear, 
McMahou,  and  the  other  leaders  of  the  Vermont  frontier  denu>nstra- 
Hon.  will!  had  Iwon  arrested,  but  released  on  boiuLs  ol"  >f.  ^OOO  after  a 
i*.v*» detention;  r.nd  the  intended  indictment  of  liobert.s  was  dropped 
i>a  matter  of  conrse. 

In  (_K-tol»er  the  (lovernment  decided  to  return  the  arms  which  had 
Wn  taken  fr!>m  the  Fenians. 

The  New  York  Times,  of  the  IGth  of  October,  gives  au  account  of 
tliw  tninsiietion : 
17  A — u 


*' 


258 


TRKATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


i,    4. 


I*f|is|-f 


nrKI\\t.f»,  Motiihiy,  nrhiKr]:,. 
In  pnrsnatirc  of  onlors  issued  liy  tln'  At  foriicy-(!<'iu'nil  of  tin-  rnih-il  Siati-.  withtl. 
«-oiiriirrviir<'  of  tlir  Scdftary  of  War,  I'liitfil  StJitrs  lli.sti'ict  Alloriif\  Itmi  j.,,;, 
iiistinctiitiis  to  (it  III  lal  Itairy,  ( iiiiiniaiiiliiiM;  ijn-  militiiry  tlistiict,  to  tiiin  ov<i  tlir  .n,,,. 
s4-i/«  il  from  till-  I'l'iiiaiis  in  tliis  cit.v,  aixl  at  otlnr  |ioiiit.s  w  itiiiii  tli)-  iiiilitai.\  <li^tl|,^ 
ii|Hiii  till-  •;i\  ill;;  ot  a  liontl  iti  ilonlilr  tlic  vaiiu'  of  tli<>  arms,  to  Im>  a|>|>riivt'il  liy  ,liiii". 
N.  K.  Ilall.tiuil  till'  ariiiH  sliall  not  ln'  iisnl  in  violation  of  tlio  nriitrality  la\v«.  'Hi,', 
wiTf  t\v«iil>  l>o\is  <if  arms  sri/i-il  lii-ri',  valiinl  af  !*',i, .'><»(».  Tiiis  jji-mial  Kiiiir  v  ,. 
])r<M  iin-il  at  tin-  iiiti  r\  rntioii  of  Hon.  .laiiirs  M.  Ilinii|ititi-y,  of  tiiis  citv .  tin  ralm,,' 
takiiiK  till- ])o>itiiiii  tiiat.as  t)ic  (o>\  i  riiiiiint  iiail  aliaiHlotii><l  tin- jtiosiiiitioii  of  i||, 
Kt-nian  oIIikts  ami  solilicrs,  it  «'oiiiil  not  roii^isti-ntly  liolil  tlirir  inivalc  iiitip.ri; 
Sivi-ral  tlii>ii>aiiil  ilollaih'  wortli  of  amis  liild  at  Kri<>,  <>s\vi-o;o,  riattsliMi^li,  Malm. 
Troy,  ami  iiiIiit  jilari's,  will  In-  tiiniril  om'T  on  tin-  sanif  ti-niis.  It  is  >;\\i\  tlmt  il,. 
arms  will  In-  ->iiU\  ut  Santa  .Vnna.     I*.  <).  l>ay  anil  T.  It.  (ialla^liiT  si^ni-il  the  lioinj. 

These  |m'isoii.s  were  well  known  a.s  liuvinj;  taken  sni  active  pait  in 
]»roini)tiii;:  tlie  laiii,  (lallaj^lier  Iteiii;^'  e(lit«ir  of  the  HntVah*  Keiiiaii  Vol 
unteiT.  The  hoiid  which  tliey  sij^iied  wa.s,  it  is  scarcely  in'cess;nv  i. 
|Miiiit  out,  a  lucre  lorin,  a.s  it  woiihl  have  hccii  utterly  iinpraetii-aliii' t^ 
itientity  the  arms  on  another  occasion.  The  alleged  intention  ot'.sfllin^ 
the  arms  to  Santa  Anna,  who  was  then  said  to  bi'  ini'ditatinj;  a  ilcsccu: 
on  Mexico,  was  a  iner«'  transparent  pretext. 

The  sirms  tlo  not  seem  to  have  been  all  restored  until  the  followiii: 
year. 

This  closes  the  account  of  the  iirst  I-'enian  raid  on  ('anada,  wliicli  linl 
<-«»st  tin-  Dominion  the  loss  of  an  olliccr  and  six  privates  ol'  tiie  (^u»Mir« 
Own  \«iliiiitc»'r  Ifillcs  killed,  and  four  olllcers  and  twenty  seven  im-: 
wounded,  many  of  them  mained  for  life.  JSesides  this  bloodshed  tliiii 
was  the  heavy  cost  t(»  the  country  in  pensions,  orratuities,  and  payiiun; 
of  claims  aiisin;;  out  of  the  rai<l,  as  well  as  the  serious  char;.;e  on  ih- 
treasury  lor  suiiinmninj,'  the  volunteers,  ami  the  himlerance  to  iiKliMi, 
by  sm-h  a  tlistiirbanct' of  the  tountry  at  ii  sca.son  of  the  year  whL'iia;;ri 
cultural  pursuits  were  in  full  operation. 


l«] 


»Si:('(>M)   UAin  ON   CANADA. 


A  renewal  of  the  attack  wtis  threatened  in  the  autumn  ol  ISiiO,  ainl 
Sf<«»if.,jo.r...  the  Canatlian  jrovernment  wa.s  obi ij^ed  to  form  a  caiiiiMi! 
»i». I'cn  volimtecrs  in  the  neiohborhood  of  S'iajjara  Falls  I'lutii  An 

jjust  to  the  .second  week  in  Oetolier.  The  expense  of  this  camp,  ovrr 
and  above  the  appropriated  drill  ])ay  and  loss  to  the  industry  el  tli*- 
I»rovitiee  fiomthe  wiilnlrawal  ol  a  lar^^j'  numlu^rof  men  from  tJieiitMiii 
pations,  amounted,  in  money,  to  •"^'SU.OOO.' 

During  the  \ear  1S<»7  the  Fenian  IJrotherhood  were  occnpii-il  in  pi  ■ 
m(»tin^'  Fenian  disturbances  in  ICnj^land  and  Ireland,  in  w)ii<-li  llalpU'. 
Uurke,  McCalferty,  and  otheis  who  ha<l  come  over  from  the  Liiititl 
States  tor  the  purpose,  were  riiijih'aders. 

In  isns  the  Fenians  obtainctl  from  the  Ciovornment  the  return  of  tli'- 
arms  seized  at  Saiid  Albans,  consistinjj;  of  about  l,.'{n(>  muskets,  am! 
ajrain  proc»-e«led  to  orfjanize  an  expedition  ajjiiinst  ('anatla. 

In  Novtiidter,  1.S0.S,  a  Fenian  contiicss  was  held  in  IMiilatlclpliiii. ;iii'i 
O'Neill  manhed  throuj^fh   the  town  at    the  hejid  of  Three  rej;initnt^ 
the  s«i  styled   Irish  republican  army,  in  jjreen  unitbiins,  numlteiin;'. ;i'| 
^as  reported,  .'5,0(10  men.-' 

Durinj;  the  year  18(it>  the  I'enians  were  eiigajjetl  in  niakin;;  ficsli  mi! 
itary  jMeparations.  On  the  7th  of  February,  ISTO,  O'Neill  wrote  ttt  t!i>^ 
circles  that  a  con<.jress  of  the  Fenian  Brotherhood  was  ordered  to  nut; | 


>  Cannilinn  Varlinnu'iitary  Paiwrs. 
'  Iriab  Aiuorican,  December  5,  lt:M>8. 


""^f! 


COl'XTKR    CASE    OF    GREAT    KKITAI.V. 


2r.o 


• 
in  Nc^^  York  on   tin*  Hth  of  Manli,  iiihI  desired  tliciii  to  sciul  none  Imt 
tlic  hot  and  most  relinlili'  men,  and  it'  it  l)e  possilile  "to  let  tliem  lia\e 
a  military  lei'ord." 

The  ateoiints  received  from  various  (juarters  of  (VNeilTs  avowed  in- 
tciitiotis.  and  the  prohaliility  of  some  attack  liein;;  made,  rendered  it 
titirssarv  for  the  Canadian  ;;overnment  to  lie  on  the  alert. 

On  the '.Mil  of  Apiil  rt,()00  militia  were  called  out.  and  t  wo  (*anadlaii 
;^iiii  Ixiats  armed,  manned,  and  iitted  out,  to  crui.se  alon;;  the  water 
iHtuiidary. 

On  the  I2th  of  May,  the  fjovernor  ;;cncral,  at  the  opi'nin;;  of  the  Ca- 
nadian parliament,  sai«l  that  "the  information  whieh  reached  my  ;;ov 
iiiiiiiciit  lr«»m  many  qiiarli'rs  as  t<i  the  «lesij;ns  of  parties  styled  Fenians, 
armed  and  openly  drilled  in  various  parts  (»f  the  nei;;hlMirin;;  Stjtes, 
ii'iiilcred  it  incumhent  on  me  to  apply  to  parliament  to  pass  an  ad  to 
>'i<.|>«-iid  the  kitlntiH  corjnhs  act,  as  well  as  to  call  out  an  armed  force  for 
ihf  (leli'iise  of  the  fr«»ntier."  ''The  vigorous  steps  resorted  to,  and  the 
laihlalilc  promptitude  with  which  the  native  militia  responded  to  the 
(.ill  to  arms,  ciiilled  the  hopes  of  the  invaders,  and  aveited  the  nien- 
atrd  (Ultra ;;e,  .so  that  I  now  entertain  a  san^fiiine  hope  that  I  shall  not 
l»t'  placetl  under  the  nece.»«sity  «)f  c.\«  rcisinj^  the  jwiweis  >»>  intrusted  to 

Ulf. 

In  the  third  week  in  May  the  Fenian  dotachmonts  l»e;:an  to  «'ollect 
ami  iiiiive  toward  the  frontier.  The  first  l)at<'li  arrived  at  Saint  Albans 
nil  the  evening;  of  the  L'.'td,  and  on  the  same  day  another  party  made 
tlifir  appearance  at  .Malon(>.  i)n  the  L'lth  Jie  I'lesideiit  issued  a  proc- 
liniatioii  statin;:  that  it  hid  come  to  his  knowled;;e  that  sundry  ille;:.il 
military  enterprises  and  expeditions  were  bein;;  .s«'t  on  foot  within  the 
t'ii'itoiy  and  iiirisdictioii  of  the  i'nited  States  against  Canada,  and 
tiiioiiiiii;:  all  oUicers  in  the  ser\  ice  of  the  Cnited  Stat«-s  to  lueViMil  tho«ie 
Miila\\l'iil  proceeding's,  and  to  arrest  and  brin;;  to  justice  those  en;,M;;ed 
ill  tlieiii.  On  the  L.'.'»tli  O'Neiirs  party  made  tlieir  attack  from  Franklin, 
a  \ilhi;:c  near  Saint  Albans,  but  were  at  once  repuls(*d  and  driven  bark 
acnissthe  Iroiitier.  (>'N»ill  was  tiu'n  arrested  by  the  Cnited  States 
Miiiislial.  A  detachment  of  forty-live  men  of  the  Fifth  Cnited  States 
liihiiitiy  arri\ed  at  Saint  Albans  in  the  eveirni}:  to  preserve  ortler. 

The  end  of  the  raid  from  Mahnie,  in  New  York  State,  was  the  same. 
Tin-  reiiians  took  up  a  position,  stren;;thciied  by  a  breastwork  of  loys 
ami  a  trench,  just  lieyond  the  Cnited  States  frontier,  and,  on  beiiii; 
attarkid.  broke  into  a  disordi-rly  lli;;ht  acr«>ss  it. 

Sf\fi;il  of  the   leaders  were  arrested  and  a  ipiantity  of  arms  taken 

jHi>M'.v>ioii  of  by  the  I'nited  Stat»'s  authoiitics.    Alto^Tther     y,„,  „.,  ,.„ 

tliiiteeii  tons  of  arms  are  said   to  have   been   seized   at    tin.  «"■"■■' <i..-r....»r. 

;«!•  raids,  and  «'onvcyed    to    Cniti'd  Slates  aisenals:  besides  these  a 

iii-lil-pi«re  ami  numbers  of  rilles  were  abandoned  on  the  seeiies  of  act  ion. 

(hi  till-  iL'th  of  .Inly  the   trials  of  the    .Maloiie  raiders  took  place:  two 

WfU'  rundemned  to  two  years'  imprisonment  and  a  line  ol  >*HK  and  one 

Ti)t)iie  year's  imprisonment  and  a  similar  tine.     On  the  -t'lh  of  July  the 

Saint  Albans  raiders  were  tried;  O'Neill   was   sentenced   t»»  two  dears' 

luiprisoninent  and  a  line  of  i^lO;  another  of  the  leaders  to  nin«'  months' 

inipiisonmcnt,  and  a  ti'>"   k|.  .i*.'! ;  and  another  to  six  months'  im- 

I'ij     prisonnifiit  and  a    line   ot    *•!.     The    •  proceed in;,'s  ajjainst    two 

others  were  post p«uieil.     ihi    he  I'Jth  of  OctobiM'  O'Neill  and  hi8 

cnmpanion.s  received  an  uncon'itiu  al  paid«m  from  the  President. 

On  the  day  on  which  Hie  pard«>n  \t  as  granted  the  President  published 
a|»nMlaiiiation  warning  evil  di.'po.scd  persons  that  the  law 
l"il»i(lding  hostile  I'xpeditions  against  Irienilty  stales  wuidd  j-iJ^T'irrTh/iw 
lorthe  future  be  riijorously  enforced.  "^'^ 


I 


P 


KM 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


144  1^    l^ 
«-  IK    III  2.2 

:■    1^    ill  2.0 


1.8 


1.25 

1.4 

1.6 

^ 6"     - 

► 

Photographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


33  WEST  MMK  'jTREET 

WEBSTER,  N.V.  I4S80 

(716)  872-450^ 


5>        %^* 


i^.. 


i/j 


260 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON. 


U 
tiii  I 


Whereas  divers  evil-dispflscd  persons  have,  at  sundry  times,  within  the  terri  forv  or  jn. 
risdiction  of  the  United  States,  begun,  or  set  on  foot,  or  provided,  or  iin.. 
iti!rtK'i'.'''"' ' ''™''''  pai'«-'d)  the  means  for  military  exi)editions  or  enterprises  to  be  eanicd  (in 
thence  against  the  territories  or  doi.  inions  of  powers  witli  whom  tlii; 
United  States  are  at  peace,  by  organizing  bodies  prt ^ending  to  have  powers  of  govcrui 
nient  over  ]»ortions  of  the  territories  or  dominions  «)f  powers  with  wlioin  the;  I'nittii 
States  are  .at  peace,  or  by  being,  or  assuming  to  be, members  of  sucli  bodies ;  by  levyini' 
or  collecting  money  for  the  purpose,  or  for  the  alleged  purpose,  of  using  tlu;  saint!  \n 
carrying  on  military  enterprises  against  such  territorit!s  or  dominions  ;  by  enli.stiiijjdi 
organizing  arnie<l  forces  to  be  use»l  against  such  powers,  and  by  fitting  out,  erinippMjjr, 
and  arming  vessels  to  transport  such  organized  armed  forces  to  be  employed  in  hostil- 
ities .igainst  such  powers; 

And  whereas  it  is  alleged,  and  there  is  reason  to  apprehend,  that  such  evil-disposcil 
persons  have  also,  at  suiulry  times,  within  the  territory  and  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States,  violated  the  law  thereof  by  accepting  and  exercising  commissions  to  serve  In 
land  or  by  sea  against  powers  with  whom  the  United  States  are  at  peace,  by  enlistiiio 
themselves  or  other  persons  to  carry  on  war  against  such  powers;  by  fitting  out  ml 
arming  vessels  with  intent  that  the  sanui  shall  be  employed  to  cruise  or  commit  hostil- 
ities against  such  powers,  or  by  delivering  commissions  within  the  territory  or  juris- 
diction of  the  United  States  for  such  vessels,  to  the  intent  th.at  they  might  be  euiployed 
as  aforesaid; 

And  whereas  such  acts  are  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States  in  such  case 
mad(!  and  ])rovided,  and  are  done  in  disregard  of  the  duties  and  obligations  which  all 
jit  isoiis  residing  or  being  within  the  territory  or  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  owe 
thereto,  and  are  condemned  by  all  right-minded  and  law-abiding  citizens : 

>i'c)W, therefore,  I,  Ulysses  S.  Grant,  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  do  herein- 
declare  and  i»roclaim  that  allpersons  hereafter  found  within  the  territory  or  jurisdittiDii 
of  the  United  States  committing  any  of  the  afore-recited  violations  of  law,  or  any  sim- 
ilar violations  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  United  States  for  which  punishment  is  jirn- 
vided  by  law,  Avill  b(!  rigorously  piosecuted  therefor,aud  upon  conviction  and  sunteiice 
to  iiunishmont  Avill  not  be  entitled  to  ex))ect  or  receive  the  clemency  of  the  Executive 
to  ,-avc  them  from  the  consequences  of  tluir  guilt,  and  I  enjoin  upon  every  oliicer  (if 
this  (lovernment,  (Mvil  or  military,  or  naval,  to  use  all  efforts  in  his  power  to  arrest, 
for  trial  and  ])unislinient,  every  such  oU'endcr  against  the  laws  providing  for  the  per- 
foimance  of  our  sacred  obligations  to  friendly  powers. 

Ou  the  5tli  of  October  last,  less  than  a  year  after  his  release  and  after 

this  proclamation,  O'Neill  led  a  third  raid  against  Canailii. 

on  the  Pembina  frontier,  but  was  arrested  by  the  United 

States  troops,  and  this  t-nie  met  with  entire  immunity, being  discharjfed 

on  the  ground  that  there  was  no  evi<lence  of  his  having  committed  any 

overt  act  within  the  UnitM  States  territory. 

This  closeB  the  history  of  the  Fenian  raids. 


Kiii.l  of  If"). 


MILITARY  EXrEDITIONS  IN  AID  OF  THE  CUBAN  INSURUECTION. 


Military  exi'*'iii- 
tiini'*  III  mil  ol  tht' 
<Juti;tii  iufurrfTlidn. 


The  proclamation  of  October,  1870,  which  has  been  cited  above,  re 
ferred  not  only  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Fenians,  but  to 
expeditions  in  aid  of  the  Cuban  insurrection. 

Mr.  Roberts,  the  Spanish  n)inister  at  Washington,  repre- 
sented to  the  United  States  Government  that  he  had  "  seen  the  depaitiire 
of  various  filibustering  expeditions,  in  broad  daylight  and  unmolesteil. 
from  New  York  and  other  Federal  ports,  and  had  finally  felt  liiinselt' 
obliged,  by  the  incomprehensible  apathy  of  the  authorities,  to  take  tlie 
initiative  in  order  to  prevent  these  repeated  infractions  of  the  neutrality 
laws."— (Mr.  Koberts  to  Mr.  Fish,  September  18,  1800.)* 

The  principal  expeditious  referred  to  seem  to  have  been  those  under 
tnken  in  the  Grapeshot  and  Peritt,  which  landed  parties  of  men  aud 
supplies  in  Cuba  in  May. 

The  United  States  Secretary  of  State,  in  his  reply,  said  that  he  "  was 
forced  to  admit  with  regret  that  an  unlawful  e,xpeditiou  did  succeed  in 

'  Papers  relating  to  Cuban  atiairs,  presented  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  Febru- 
ry  21,  1870,  pp.  133-138. 


COUNTER   CASE    OF   GREAT   BRITAIN. 


2G1 


stoaltliily  escaping  from  the  United  St.ntes  and  landing  on  tlio  sliores  of 
Cuba,'' but  that  it  had  escaped  unnoticed  by  either  the  United  Stiues 
officers  or,  as  he  believed,  by  the  agents  of  the  Spanish  government.' 

A  furtber  ex^)c'Jition  was  subsequently  dispatched  from  New  Orleans 
in  tbe  sliip  Cespedes,  or  Lilian,  in  October,  18G9,  to  Cedar  Keys,  Flori- 
da, where  she  was  met  by  a  body  of  from  300  to  350  armed  men,  under 
coiumand  of  a  Cuban  named  Goicurria,  who  had  sailed  from  New  York 
to  joia  her  in  the  steamer  Alabama.  The  Lilian  failed  in  landing  the 
expedition  on  the  Cuban  coast,  and  was  finally  stopped  and  condemned 

for  a  breach  of  the  British  foreign-enlistment  act  at  Nassau. 
[46]  *  A  still  more  notorious  vessel  is  the  Hornet,  or  Cuba.  The 
Hornet  is,  an  iron  paddle-wheel  steamer,  originally  a  blockade- 
runner,  of  820  tons.  She  was  captured  during  the  civil  war,  and  taken 
into  the  United  States  Navy  as  a  dispatch-boat,  in  which  capacity  she 
tiuried  eight  guns.  She  was  sold  in  June,  18G9,  to  Seiior  Macias,  and 
it  is  believed  retained  her  portholes.  After  being  refitted  at  Kensing- 
ton, near  Philadelphia,  she  cleared  for  Halifax,  but  was  detained  for 
inquiry  as  to  her  intended  proceedings.  At  Halifax  she  was  again  de- 
tained on  the  assertion  that  she  had  heavy  guns  on  board,  bur,  this 
proving  incorrect,  she  was  released,  and  sailed  along  the  United  States 
coast.  Coals,  supplies,  and  firms  are  stated  to  have  been  shipi»ed  on 
board,  and  she  then  put  in  at  Wilmington,  North  Carolina,  flying  the 
Cuban  flag.  Here  she  was  arrested  for  violation  of  the  neutrality  laws, 
and  her  commander,  a  United  States  citizen,  and  twenty-three  others 
tried,  and  the  vessel  herself  taken  possession  of  by  the  United  States 
authorities. 

The  result  of  the  trial  was  that  th*^  judge  held  that  only  two  acts  were 
sliown  to  have  been  committed  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Ignited 
States  from  which  an  intent  to  violate  the  neutrality  laws  could  be  in- 
ferred. These  were  the  enlistment  of  a  witness,  D.  D.  Munro,  and  the 
reception  of  a  cargo  of  coal  in  Long  Lsland  Sound.  The  commander 
and  sixteen  of  the  prisoners  were  discharged,  and  six  others  released 
on  bail.^  It  does  not  appear  that  any  further  proceedings  were  taken 
against  them. 

The  vessel  was  then  libeled  in  the  admiralty  court,  but  after  some 
delay  wjs  returned  to  her  former  owner,  Sefior  Macias,  on  bonds  being 
siveii  by  Senator  Chandler  and  General  Butler  that  she  would  not  be 
again  used  in  violation  of  the  neutralitj-  laws.  She,  however,  has  since 
recommenced  her  career,  and  after  taking  in  stores  and,  as  is  supposed, 
arms,  at  Aspinwall,  succeeded  in  landing  an  expedition  in  Cuba  in  Jan- 
uary, 1871.  She  then  took  refuge  at  St.  Domingo,  and  in  January  of 
the  present  year  was  convoyed  to  Baltimore,  under  the  protection  of  ft 
United  States  ship  of  war.  It  remains  to  be  seen  whether  any  legal 
luoceediugs  will  be  instituted  against  her,  and,  if  so,  what  will  be  their 
result. 

The  views  held  by  the  United  States  Secretary  of  State  with  regard 
to  the  Cuban  Junta,  at  New  York,  by  whom  these  expeditions  were 
concerted,  were  thus  expressed  in  a  dispatch  to  the  United  States  min- 
ister at  Madrid,  in  January,  1870  : 

''Had  the  Cuban  Junta,"  be  says,  "  expended  their  money  and  eneri^y  iu  sondinjf  to 
tlie  iusiu{;ents  arms  and  munitions  of  war,  as  they  miylit  have  done  consistently  with 
our  own  statutes,  and  with  the  law  of  nations,  instead  of  devoting  them  to  deliberate 


;*,,M 


'Patters  relating-  to  Cuban  ati'airs,  presented  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  Febru- 
ary-il,  H70,  pp.  UJ3-138. 

•' United  States  rs.  The  officers  of  the  steamship  Cuba,  reporf  d  in  Wilmington  Jour- 
nal, October  31, 1869. 


262 


TREATY   OF    WASHINGTON. 


.. '  m 


violation  of  the  law  of  tho  United  States,  and  bad  they,  in  lieu  of  illegally  oiiiplovin" 
pisrsons  within  the  dominions  of  the  United  States  to  <jro  in  armed  l;and.s  to  C'lilin/uni'! 

ceeded  thither  unarmed  themselves  to  taiu'iMMsonal  part  in  the. strn;?<;le  for  indcii(Mi(ipncc 
it  is  possible  that  tho  result  would  ]iav(i  been  dirt'erent  in  Cuba,  and  it  is  certain  tlmt 
there  wouhl  have  been  a  more  ardent  feeling  in  the  United  States  in  favor  of  tlaii 
cause,  and  more  respect  for  their  own  sincerity  and  personal  courage."' 

And  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Eobeits,  dated  the  2Sth  of  December,  ]\rr.  Fish 
pressed  upon  Mr.  Eoberts  the  necessity  of  legal  evidence  being  furnished 
in  order  to  enable  the  local  authorities  to  act : 

The  undersigned  takes  the  liberty  to  call  the  attention  of  Mr  Lopez  Roberts  to  the 
fact  that  a  district-attorney  of  the  United  Stattis  is  an  oftieer  whose  duties  are  rc'ru. 
lated  by  law,  and  who,  in  the  absence  of  executive  warrant,  has  no  liglit  to  detain 
the  vessels  of  American  citizens  without  h^gal  process,  founded  not  ui)on  surmises,  of 
upo'.  the  antecedent  character  of  a  ve.s.sel,  or  upon  the  belief  or  conviction  of  acousul, 
but  upon  prooi"  submitted  according  to  tho  forms  reciuired  by  law.^ 

Her  Majesty's  government  do  not  adduce  these  instances  of  recent 
violations  of  the  neutrality  laws  of  the  United  States,  the  facts  of  whjcli 
are  notorious,  in  any  spirit  of  accusation  or  recrimination.  But  the  atten- 
tion of  the  arbitrators  has  been  called  to  the  long  series  of  illegal  expedi- 
tions which  have  been  organized  and  dispatched  from  the  United  State.s 
against  the  territories  of  friendly  nations  during  the  last  twenty-two 
years,  as  instances  of  the  flagrant  manner  with  which  the  laws  of  tlie 
United  States  have  been  evaded,  as  shown  by  the  messages  of  successive 
Presidents,  in  spite  of  what  Her  IMajesty's  government  assumes  to  have 
been  the  intentions  and  efforts  of  the  executive  authorities.  From  these 
multiplied  examples  the  arbitrators  may  be  enabled  to  form  an  estimate 
of  the  measure  of  "due  diligence"  in  executing  laws  for  the  prevention 
of  such  enterprises  which  the  United  States  have  considered  sufficient 
in  their  own  authorities,  and  could  not,  therefore,  reasonably  expect  to 
be  exceeded  by  the  authorities  of  other  countries. 


[47] 


♦recapitulation. 


Pri'i'*'<lt'ntr*  appeal- 
Mil  to  i.y  iht!  L'nited 
Jflate.-*. 


lUH'jpitiiliition. 


Out  of  this  retrospect,  which  has  been  rendered  necessary  by  the  state- 
ments introduced  into  the  ense  of  the  United  States,  tlie 
following  observations  arise : 
1.  The  argument  of  the  United  States,  that  a  neutral  gov- 
ernment is  not  only  bound  to  exert  reasonable  care  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  violations  of  its  neutrality,  but  is  bound  to  apply  to  the  vari- 
ous duties  which  purport  to  be  enumerated  in  the  three 
rules,  pursued  in  their  minutest  details,  and  pushed  even 
beyond  the  natural  meaning  of  the  words  employed,  a  diligence  the 
most  energetic,  vigilant,  and  exact,  finds  (whether  it  be  true  or  not)  no 
support  in  this  history.  Howevei*  rigorously  the  United  States  may 
now  be  disposed  to  estimate  the  obligations  of  other  powers,  they  have 
not  so  construed  their  own. 

2.  The  arguuient  that  compensation  is  due,  as  of  right,  for  any  loss 
sustained  in  war  by  a  belligerent,  which  may  be  traced  to  a  relaxation 
of  diligence  on  the  part  of  neutral  powers  in  preventing  violations  of 
neutrality,  whether  it  be  sound  or  not  in  itself,  is  not  supported  hy  any 
precedent  adduced.  The  United  States  have  never  paid,  nor  have  tbey 
ever  admitted  a  liability  to  pay,  such  compensation. 

3.  Where  compensation  has  been  claimed  in  such  cases,  it  has  been 

'  Tapers  rehiting  to  Cubna  afl'airs,  presented  to  the  House  of  liepresentatives  Feb- 
ruary 21,  1870,  )).  119. 

^Papers  relating  to  the  foreign  relations  of  tho  United  States  transmitted  to  Con- 
gress with  the  annual  message  of  the  President,  December  4,  1871,  p.  786. 


^^mim 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


263 


limited  to  the  values  of  ships  and  cargoes  captured  by  vessels  unlaw- 
jully  fitted  out  and  armed  ;  and  the  chiini  has  never  been  admitted, 
except  when  such  prizes  have  been  brought  by  the  captoi's  within  the 
jiiiisdiction  of  the  neutral  power. 

4.  Tiie  position  that  a  neutral  government  is  under  an  obligation  to 
seize  and  detain  any  armed  ship  entering  its  ports,  even  though  com- 
uiijisioiied  as  a  public  ship  of  war,  which  has  received  any  equipment  or 
any  adaptation  for  war  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  neutral,  is  equally 
unsupported.  There  is  no  trace  of  such  an  obligation.  The  Americau 
(loveninient  did  indeed,  in  1703,  direct  th.ic  privateers  which  had  vio- 
lated its  neutrality  should  not  have  asylum  in  its  ports.  But  even  this 
(wbicli  is  a  very  different  thing)  it  acknowledged  no  obligation  to  do; 
and  the  exclusion  (which  does  not  appear  to  have  been  extended  to 
public  ships  of  war)  seems  to  have  been  by  no  means  steadily  enforced. 

Filially,  Her  Majesty's  government  cannot  forbear  to  remark  that  the 
history  of  this  subje(;t  is  from  first  to  last  a  history  of  unlawful  enter- 
prises originated  either  in  the  United  States  or  by  citizens  of  the  United 
Stales  in  other  countries.  Great  Britain,  Spain,  Portugal,  Mexico,  the 
Ceutral  American  Kepublics,  Cuba,  and  Canada,  have  from  time  to  time 
beeii  harassed  by  privateers  fitted  out  in  the  ports  of  the  Union,  or  hos- 
tile expeditions  organized  and  assembled  within  its  territory.  And 
when,  in  18G1,  civil  war  broke  out  within  the  Union  itself,  it  was  by 
American  citizens  that  the  plan  was  formed  to  abuse,  for  the  more 
effectual  prosecution  of  that  war,  the  soil  and  waters  of  a  neutral  and 
friendly  nation.  Battled,  in  the  great  majority  of  cases,  by  the  restraints 
of  the  law  and  the  watchfulness  of  the  Executive,  they  contrived,  in  a 
very  few,  to  elude  those  restraints.  They  procured  ships,  transported 
tliem  to  distant  seas,  armed  and  manned  them  there,  and  employed 
them  iu  cruising  against  their  countrymen,  not,  indeed,  for  the  sake  of 
plunder  or  profit,  but  to  assist  the  people  of  their  own  States  in  a  strug- 
;,'le  for  independence.  The  Southern  States  have  returned  to  their 
allegiance.  They  have  been  treated  with  clemency,  and  no  attempt 
has  been  made  to  exact  from  thewi,  by  fines  or  forfeitures,  pecuniary 
repaiHtion  for  the  losses  which  the  Government  and  the  rest  of  the  ))eo- 
ple  of  the  United  States  have  sustained  through  their  means.  The  acts 
which  they  directed  and  authorized,  when  in  arras  against  the  Union, 
me  now,  on  behalf  of  the  nation  of  which  they  form  an  important  part, 
made  the  subject  of  complaints  and  demands  against  Great  Britain. 
Her  ]\Iajesty's  government  has  been  ready  and  willing  to  give  the  United 
States  all  reasonable  satisfaction  b^'  submitting  the  question  to  the 
award  of  an  impartial  tribunal.  But  it  is  surely  no  unjust  observation 
that,  if  ever  there  was  a  case  in  which  a  power,  deeming  itself  aggrieved, 
might  have  been  expected  to  state  its  complaints  with  moderation,  and 
to  make  ample  allowance  for  administrative  ditticulties  and  unavoidable 
deficiencies  of  proof,  tiiat  occasion  is  the  present  and  that  power  is  the 
United  States. 


2. 


i*^ 


[48] 


*P  A  R  T     IV. 


^il 


VARIOUS  COMPLAINTS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  AGAINST  GREAT 
BRITAIN ;  TRAFFIC  IN  MUNITIONS  OF  WAR. 


I'M 


H  y^ 


V 

AKT    IV. 

-Viiri- 

OHM 

I'fiiiiphu 

it»    III 

iIk' 

UuiIimI 

SKil.M 

W.i 

list  fireal 

llrit- 

iiiii. 

I 

riinic     in 

muni- 

linr 

s  ol  war. 

The  fourth  part  of  the  Case  of  the  United  States  contains  a  genera^ 
and  comprehensive  statement  of  all  the  complaints  whjcli 
they  conceive  themselves  to  have  against  Groat  Britain.  It 
will  be  found,  on  examinatiou,  that  these  complaints  are 
of  two  classes.  A  small  number  of  them  have  reference 
to  the  vessels  euuinerated  at  p.  320  of  the  Case,  or  some  of 
them,  and  charge  or  suggest  against  Great  Britain  certain  failures  of 
duty  in  respect  of  those  vessels.  A  much  larger  number  have  no  refer- 
ence whatever  to  those  vessels,  and  do  not  charge  or  suggest  any  failure 
of  duty  in  resi)ect  of  tliem  or  any  of  them.  The  former  class  are  within 
the  scope  of  the  reference  to  arbitration ;  the  latter  are  not  within  it. 

In  the  Case  of  the  United  States,  however,  these  various  complaints 
have  been  connected  together  in  a  narrative  which  draws  no  distinc- 
tion between  those  which  are  and  those  which  are  not  relevant  to  tlie 
questions  at  issue. 
Analyzing  the  narrative,  we  find  that  it  is  in  substance  as  follows: 
The  government  cf  the  Confederate  States  sent  to  England,  to  Nassau, 
to  Havana,  and  other  places,  agents  instructed  to  purchase  arms  and 
munitions  of  war,  with  other  things  of  which  the  Confederate  States 
stood  in  need,  and  to  procure  ships  suitable  for  warlike  use.  The  per- 
sons sent  to  England  on  this  errand  were  supplied  with  funds  by  remit- 
tances of  specie  and  consignments  of  cotton,  all  necessary  payments 
being  made  by  drafts  on  a  mercantile  house  in  Liverpool,  who  were 
"depositories"  of  the  funds.  The  whole  southern  coast  being  block- 
aded, it  was  necessary  for  the  agents  to  send  their  purchases  in  such  a 
numner  as  to  elude  the  blockade.  The  British  islands  of  New  Provi- 
dence and  Bermuda  offered,  from  their  geographical  position,  peculiar 
facilities  for  the  purpose,  and  advantage  was  taken  of  these  facilities, 
large  quantities  of  goods  being  sent  thither  from  England,  and  for- 
warded thence  to  different  confederate  ports.  Some  of  the  ships  em- 
ployed in  this  traffic  were  the  property  of  the  confederate  government; 
some  others  were  chartered  by  its  agents.  The  colonial  authorities,  it 
is  affirmed,  encouraged  the  trade,  and  placed  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
the  United  States  cruisers  which  were  endeavoring  to  suppress  it.  It 
is  added  that  the  difficulties  thus  created  were  enhanced  by  an  order  of 
the  British  government,  which  directed  that  vessels  of  war  should  not 
be  admitted,  unless  in  case  of  distress,  to  the  ports  of  the  Bahama 
Islands.  Meanwhile  the  confederate  agents  contracted  with  ship-build- 
ers in  England  and  Scotland  for  ships  suitable  for  war  to  be  built  to 
order,  and  purchased  some  others  in  the  market.  Three  or  four  of  these 
vessels  they  succeeded  in  sending  to  sea;  the  remainder  were  stopped. 
They  also  purchased  guns,  munitions  of  war,  and  ships'  stores,  and 
dispatched  them  to  various  places — the  Azores,  the  Madeira  Islands, 


»i!.«.'    VP  'i,»*?u|pfy»n»f 


COUNTER   CASE   OF   GREAT   BRITAIN. 


265 


one  of  tlie  Bahamas,  the  coast  waters  of  France — where  they  were  put 
nil  board  of  the  vessels.  English  seamen  were  induced  to  serve  in  them, 
and  were  paid  their  wages  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  Liverpool 
lioiise.  The  British  government  rerpiired,  before  it  would  order  the 
seizure  of  a  suspected  vessel,  evidence  which  could  be  produced  in  a 
cmirt  of  Justice.  It  declined  during  the  war  to  propose  to  Parliament 
aii\  alteration  of  "^he  law  applicable  co  such  cases,  stating  that  the  law 
was  siirticient,  and  ihat  where  it  had  failed  the  deficiency  had  been  in 
tinu'ly  proof  that  the  acts  complained  of  were  within  the  law. 

This  is  the  substance  of  the  complaints  of  the  United  States,  stated 
in  simple  terms.  Some  of  them  are  true,  some  erroneous,  and  the  greater 
part  irrelevant  to  the  questions  referred  to  the  tribunal. 

It  is  the  right  of  Great  Britain  to  decline  absolutely  any  discussion 
on  the  qnestion  whether,  in  taking  no  steps  to  prevent  the  conveyaiu;e 
otainis  and  munitions  of  war  from  British  or  colonial  ports  to  the  Con- 
liilerate  States,  or  in  any  matter  whatever  connected  with  tliat  traffic, 
lier  government  tailed  to  discharge  any  international  duty.  But 
:t9]  tluit  *something  should  here  be  said  on  this  subject  may  perhaps 
be  convenient  to  the  arbitrators. 

In  the  case  presented  to  the  tribunal  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain, 
[he  following  propositions  were  laid  down  as  agreeable  to  the  principles 
I  of  international  law  and  the  practice  of  nations : 

A  neutral  {government  is  bound  to  exercise  due  dili}:;ence,  to  the  intent  that  no  place 
I  ivitliiii  its  territory  be  made  use  of  by  either  belljirerent  as  a  base  or  point  of  departure 
I  tor  a  military  or  naval  expedition,  or  for  hostilities  by  land  or  sea. 

A  neutral  j^overnment  is  not,  by  force  of  the  above-mentioned  obligation  or  otber- 

I  nise,  bound  to  prevent  or  restrain  the  sale  within  its  territory,  to  a  belligerent,  of  arti- 

ilts  contraband  of  war,  or  the  niauufacture  within  its  territory  of  such  articles  to  the 

onkrof  a  belligerent,  or  the  delivery  thereof  within  its  territory  to  a  belligerent  pur- 

cliastT,  or  the  exportation  of  such  articles  from  its  territory  for  sale  to,  or  for  the  use 

I  of,  a  belligerent. 

Her  Majesty's  government  has  hitherto  believed  that,  on  this  subject, 
[no  difference  of  opinion  existed  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
[States.  By  no  power  has  the  principle  been  asserted  so  strongly,  unre- 
[seivedly,  and  consistently  as  by  the  United  States,  and  no  nation  has 
[more  freely  acted  upon  it.^ 

It  can  hardly  be  necessary  to  cite  examples.    The  emphatic  enunciation  of  this 
Imtiine  in  Mr.  Jefferson's  letter  to  Mr.  Hammond  (15th  May,  17i)3)  has  been  often 
|Mi'iTC(l  to : 

"The  purchase  of  arms  and  military  acconterments  by  an  agent  of  the  French  gov- 

leriiiiient  iu  this  country,  with  an   intent  to  export  them  to  France,  is  the  subject  of 

laimtlier  of  the  memorials;  of  this  fact  we  .are  equally  uninformed  as  of  the  former. 

lOiir  citizens  have  been  always  free  to  make,  vend,  and  export  arms.    It  is  the  constant 

Iwiiipation  and  livelihood  of  some  of  them.    To  suppress  their  callings,  the  only  nmana 

jlHiliaps  of  their  subsistence,  because  ii  war  exists  iu  foreign  and  distant  countries,  iu 

Ivliich  wo  have  no  concern,  would  scarcely  be  expected.     It  would  be  hard  in  principle 

\h1  impossible  in  practice.    The  law  of  nations,  therefore,  respecting  the  rights  of  those 

*t  iK'ace.  does  not  recpiire  from  them  such  an  internal  derangenient  iu  their  occupations. 

Bt  is  satisfied  with  the  external  penalty  pronounced  in  the  President's  proclamation, 

ml  of  confiscation  of  such  portion  of  these  arms  as  shall  fall  into  the  hands  of  any  of 

llie  bdliirereut  powers  on  their  way  to  the  ports  of  their  enemies.    To  this  penalty  our 

litizt'us  are  warned  that  they  will  be  abandoned,  and  that  even  private  contraventions 

piny  work  no  inequality  between  the  parties  at  war,  the  benefit  of  them  will  be  left 

^qually  free  and  oiieu  to  all  " — (Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  v,  p.  242.) 

it  will  be  observed  that  this  was  subsequeut  to  a  proclamation  issued  by  the  Pi'esi- 
f  lit,  in  which  conveyance  of  contraband  to  a  belligerent  was  specified  as  among  the 
lets  involving  a  liability  to  "punishment  or  forfeiture  under  the  law  of  nations," 
N  notice  was  given  that  prosecutions  would  be  instituted  agaiust  ail  persons  who 
iiiiiild,  within  the  cognizance  of  the  courts  of  the  United  States,  "  violate  the  law  of 
fiitions  with  respect  to  the  powers  at  war  or  any  of  them."  It  was  written  in  answer 
'II  lepreseutation  by  the  British  minister  to  the  effect  that  he  had  "received  iuforma- 


^ 


fj  ' 


I ' 


I 


at- 


2G6 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON. 


Tlipse  propositions  are  true  without  any  qualification,  and  tlioylinvo 
lonj?  been  accepted  and  acted  upon  as  true  without  qualification  hy  tlm 
maritime  powers  of  Eurojje  and  of  the  American  continent.  Eacli  belli;'. 
erent  is  at  liberty  to  profit  by  the  tratlic;,  so  far  as  it  may  be  of  nscti) 
him;  he  is  free  also  to  repress  it,  if  he  can,  so  far  as  it  is  of  iissistaiue 
to  his  enemy ;  and  for  this  latter  purpose  he  is  armed  l)y  the 
[50]  custom  of  nations  *with  exceptional  powers,  which  exist  only 
during  the  war,  the  power  to  detain,  search,  and  capture  on  the 
hijyh  seas  the  vessels  of  nations  with  which  he  is  at  i)eace.  The  justifi- 
cation of  the  WHiige  which  intrusts  these  powers  to  the,  belligerent  may 
be  found  in  the  fact  that  the  repr<'Ssion  of  the  trade,  so  far  a.s  it  niilj. 
tates  against  his  interests,  is  abandoned  to  him,  and  is  not  a  duty  of  the 
neutral. 

It  is  perfectly  immaterial  in  the  view  of  international  law  whetlicrtln' 
contraband  goods  are  i)urchased  in  the  neutral  nuirket  by  persons  who 
resort  thither  for  the  purpose,  or  are  shipped  to  order,  or  consigned  tor 
sale  to  persons  in  the  belligerent  country.  It  is  immaterial  whether  tin 
purchases  are  effected  by  agents  of  the  belligerent  governnu'nt  or  liv 
private  sjjeculators.  It  is  iuunaterial  whether  the  ownership  of  thf 
vessels  in  which  the  transportation  is  effected  is  belligerent  or  nentrnl: 
the  only  differences  are  that,  in  the  former  case,  the  neutral  supplies  tlu' 
merchandise  alone,  while  in  the  latter  he  supplies  both  merchjuidise  ami 
carriage,  hazarding  the  chances  of  detention  and  capture ;  in  the  former 
the  cargo  is  liable  to  condemnation  as  enemy's  goods  in  an  enemy's  ship: 
in  the  latter  as  contraband  goods  in  the  ship  of  a  neutral.  It  is  iniiiia 
terial  whether  the  ship  whicli  conveys  them  is  chartered  or  owned  by 
privat(^  l)ersons  or  by  the  belligerent  government  itself,  provided  she  be 


tion  from  various  respectable  quarters,  that  a  consitleralth!  quantity  of  arms  and  i 
tary  accoiitcniieiits,  which  an  agent  of  the  Frencli  government  lias  collected  and  imr- 1 
chased  in  this  country,  is  now  preparing  to  be  exported  from  New  York  to  France." 

"The  secrecy  with  which  a  transaction  of  tliis  nature  is  generally  conducted,  has  I 
rendered  it  impossible  for  the  undersigned  to  procure  precise  proof  of  it.    Entortaliiiiii;,  | 
however,  no  doubt  of  the  existence  of  the  fact,  he  esteems  it  his  duty  to  lay  it  iinim- 
diateiy  before  the  Executive  Government  of  the  United  States,  which  he  trnsts  will 
deem  it  more  expedient  (if  any  measures  for  the  purpose  can  be  devised)  topreviiitlli' 
execution  of  this  contravention  of  the  President's  ])roclamation  than  to  exjiosn  vessib 
belonging  to  its  citizens  to  those  dangers  and  difficulties  which  may  result  from  t'ii>  I 
circumstance  of  their  carrying  articles  of  the  description  above  mentioued."    (Mr.  j 
Hammond  to  Mr.  Jeifersou,  May  8,  179;i.) — Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  v,  p.  241. 

Mr.  Hammond's  cautious  language  shows  that  ho  understood  the  effect  of  a  pimia- 
ination  of  neutrality  as  calling  attention  to  the  existing  prohibitions,  not  as  creating  | 
new  ones.    The  Government  of  the  United  States  apparently  do  not  understand  this. 
He  appears  to  have  accepted  Mr.  Jefferson's  answer  without  demur. 

The  minister  of  the  Mexican  Republic,  in  IHG*^,  when  Mexico  was  invaded  by  a  Frciich  I 
army,  urged  the  American  Government  to  juohibit  the  export  of  mules  and  \v)i|;iMid 
"Which  French  agents  were  purchasing  for  tlie  use  of  the  expedition.  Mr.  Seward  ri-| 
fused,  citing  the  following  authorities  : 

Instructions  to  collectors  of  customs,  issued  ly  Alexander  Hamilton,  Secretary  of  the  TreasuriA 

August  4,  1793. 

"The  purchasing  and  exporting  from  the  United  States,  hj  way  of  merchandise,  articles! 
commonly  called  contrabaiul,  being  generally  warlike  instruments  and  stores,  is  Cwj 
to  all  parties  at  war,  and  is  not  to  be  interfered  with.  If  our  own  citizens  undertaJvetoj 
crrry  them  to  any  of  these  parties  they  will  be  abandoned  to  the  penalties  which  the| 
laws  of  war  authorize." — (American  State  Papers,  Foreign  Relations,  vol.  1,  p.  141.) 

Mr.  Webster  to  Mr.  Thompson,  July  8,  1842. 

"It  is  not  the  practice  of  nations  to  undertake  to  prohibit  their  own  subjects  from  I 
trathckinp  in  articles  contraband  of  war.  Such  trade  is  carried  on  at  the  ri.sk  of  tliosej 
engaged  in  it  under  the  liabilities  and  penalties  prescribed  by  the  law  of  uatiouso[| 
particular  treaties." — (Webster's  Works,  vol.  0,  p.  452.) 


.  ■Jfr,  Webster's 


^^p^liiwpll^ 


COUNTER   CASE    OF   GREAT   BRITAIN. 


207 


employed  only  for  carriage  and  not  armed  for  war.  Nor,  again,  does 
tlit'in'oxiiiiityof  fi  neutral  port,  whence  tlu^  trade  is  carried  on,  to  either 
Mlijicrt'iit  country,  make  any  dilterence  in  the  duties  of  tlie  neutrai 
(Tiivcruinent.  Nor  does  it  make  a  <lili'erence  that  the  coast  or  harbors  of 
eitlier  belligerent  are  blockaded,  nu)re  or  less  ett'ectively,  by  the  other. 
Astlic  neutral  governnuMit  is  under  no  obligation  to  prevent  breaches  of 
lilot'kiule  and  the  export  of  contraband  when  the  transactions  are  dis- 
tinct, so  it  is  under  no  obligation  to  prevent  them  when  the  transactions 
are  combined. 

It  is  necessary  to  state  this  principle  firmly  and  clearly  ;  otherwise  it 

ffoiikl  bo  at  the  mercy  of  every  powerful  belligerent.    Tliere  never  was 

;i  war  in  which  some  special  circumstan(!es  might  not  be  pleaded  and 

jpecial  reasons  given  for  setting  it  aside  in  the  interest  of  one  party  or 

j  tbe  other. 

[arms  and  military  supplies  purchased  by  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

At  the  commencement  and  during  the  course  of  the  war  both  bellig- 
leients  resorted  to  Great  Britain  for  supplies  of  arms  and  military  mate- 
rial, of  which  both  were  in  need.    The  wants  of  the  Government  of  the 
Uiiioii  appear  to  have  been  at  fust  even  more  pressing  than  those  of  its 
I  adversaries,  since  the  Government  which  preceded  that  of  Mr.  Lincoln 

(I  removed,  it  is  said,  considerable  quantities  of  arms  from  the  north- 
ern arsenals  to  tijose  in  the  Southern  States. 
[[jl]        On  this  subject  the  Secretary  of  War  at  Washington,  iu  his 


|j/r.  WeMer^s  JnstiucUons  of  July  8,  1842,  cited  in  Gardner's  ItistrucUona,  Imerican  Inter- 
national Law,  page  552. 

■That  if  American  niercliants,  in  the  way  of  commerce,  liad  sold  mnnitiona  of  war 
Ito Texas,  the  Government  of  the  United  Stat'^s,  nevertheless,  were  not  bound  to  pre- 
Iveiitit,  and  could  not  have  prevented  it  withuut  a  manifest  dei)arture  from  the  princi- 
jplesof  neutrality." 

iPra'rfdiC*  message,  1st  session  2Hh  Congress — Franlclin  Pierce,  President;  William L.  Marcy, 
■  Secretary  of  State. 

Tliolaws  of  the  United  States  do  not  forbid  their  citizens  to  sell  to  either  of  the 
IWligeieiit  powers  articles  contraband  of  war,  or  take  munitions  of  war  or  soldiers  on 
Ikird  tlu;ir  private  ships  for  transportation  ;  and  althoujjh,  in  so  doing,  the  individual 
Ifitizen  exposes  his  property  or  person  to  some  of  the  hazards  of  war,  his  acts  do  not 
liuvolvo  any  breach  of  national  neutrality,  nor  of  themselves  implicate  the  Goveru- 
Imt'iit."— (Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  v,  p.  332.) 
Thepassiiffe  last  cited  proceeds  as  follows: 

"Thus,  (luring  the  progress  of  the  present  war  in  Europe,  our  citizens  have,  without 
liatiniial  responsibility  therefor,  solcl  gnni)owder  and  arms  to  all  buyers,  regardless  of 
pile  destination  of  those  articles.  Our  merchantmen  have  been,  and  still  continue  to  be, 
pruely  eniidoyed  by  Great  Britain  and  France  in  transporting  troops,  provisions,  and 
fiiiuitiuns  of  war  to  the  principal  seat  of  military  operations,  and  in  bringing  homo 
pile  sick  and  wounded  soldiers;  but  such  use  of  ourjmercantile  marine  is  not  iuterdict- 
1  either  by  the  international  or  by  our  municipal  law,  and,  therefore,  does  not  com- 
|iroii)ise  our  neutral  relations  with  Russia." 

That  the  United  States  still  adhere  to  this  principle  was  abundantly  proved  iu  the 
poiirse  of  the  recent  war  between  France  and  Germany. 

It  is  ill  the  ])ower,  of  cour,se,  of  a  neutral  government  to  prohibit  the  exportation  of 
jtoiitraband,  if  it  think  fit,  and  if  such  a  prohibition  bo  within  the  limit  of  its  consti- 
[utioiml  authority,  but  eveu  such  a  prohibition  gives  no  right  to  either  belligerent. 
"Der  Vurkanf  an  und  fUr  sich  alleiu  kanu  zwar  von  einem  neutralen  staate  selbst 
ifincu  Angehori^en  untersagt  werden  ;  allein  durch  die  Ueberschreitung  dieses  Verbo- 
!•■*  niacht  man  sich  uur  dem  eigeneu  staate  verantwortlich  ;  der  kriegfiihrondo  selbst 
kiitsiini'ivseits  keiuo  Betllguiss  die  contraveution  zu  ahnden."—(Heft"cer,  section  161, 
«th  edition.) 


'.':i    ; 


268 


TREATY   OF   WASHINGTON. 


report  to  tho  President  on  the  Ist  of  July,  1801,  made  the  following 
Htateuients: 

Previous  to  tho  early  part  of  last  year  the  Oovornineiit  had  a  supply  dC  arms  ami 
Arm.  ..ml iniiii.iry   "niiiitioiis  of  waf  KiilHcioiit  fof  ally  eint'ifrfiicy  ;  hilt   tlirou^li  tlu' lu,! 

B..P1.I..H    iMinhi I  faith  (>f  those  iiitiustoil  with  their  yiianliaiiship,  they  wt-n-  taken  tnim 

'"'""■'"'"''"■"""'*  their  proper  depositories  and  distrilmted  throuj^h  portimis  ot'  ilie  c,,,,,,. 
try  expected  to  take  part  in  the contein.plalod  rebt'llioii.  In  consefiiieiiL'e  nl'  tlie  s.rimu 
loss  thus  sustained,  tht^re  was  available  at  the  eoiiiiueuceineiit  of  the  outl)nak  a  iinuli 
less  supply  tiiau  usual  of  all  kinds.  But  throiif;h  the  zeul  and  activity  of  tlic  Onlnain,. 
Itureau  the  embaiTassineiit  thus  ereated  has  lieeii  in  a  ;;reat  nieasunf  ovcrcDHK;.  .\s 
the  capacity  of  the  Government  armories  is  not  equal  to  the  supply  iifcilcd,  cvin 
after  liavinj;  doubled  the  force  of  the  Spriiifjlield  armory,  the  D«'itartu»eiit  fomul  it  ali- 
Holutely  nticessary  to  procure  arms  to  some  extent  from  private  inanufactiin  is.  '  '  • 
Some  patriotic  American  citizens  resident  in  Europe,  fcNirin^  that  the;  coimtiy  iiiiijlit 
not  have  a  sutlicient  supply,  jjurchased,  on  their  own  responsibility,  thniu^fli  cD-niitii. 
tion  with  the  United  States  ministers  to  En;;laud  and  France,  a  number  of  iiniirdvi.l 
cannon  and  muskets,  and  at  your  instance  this  Department  accepted  the  diat'ls  (liawii 
to  defray  the  outlay  thus  assumed,  A  perfect  battery  of  Whitworth  six  I'J-poun.l.r 
titled  cannon,  wit  li '.{,000  roundsof  ammunition,  the  muniticeut  donation  of  sympatliiziii^ 
friends  in  Europe,  has  also  been  received  from  Enj^land.' 

In  his  report  of  1st  December  in  the  same  jear,  the  same  miuister 
said: 

As  stated  in  my  last  report,  at  the  commencement  of  this  rebellion  tho  Government 
fonnd  itself  deficient  inarms  and  munitions  of  war,  throufjh  the  bad  faith  of  tliospiii- 
trusted  with  their  c(Uitrol  during  the  preceding  administration.  The  ariiieiy  at  Har- 
jter's  Ferry  having  been  destroyed  to  prevent  its  possession  and  use  by  the  rebels,  tlie 
Government  was  compelled  to  rely  upon  the  single  arnuuy  at  Springfield  and  n\m 
private  establishments  for  a  supply  of  arms.  *  »  '*  After  having  made  coutiiKts 
for  arms  \\  ith  the  private  establishments  in  this  country,  it  was  deemed  necessary  liy 
the  President,  to  insure  a  speedy  and  ample  supply,  to  send  a  special  agent  to  Enriipe 
with  funds  to  tho  amount  of  $2,000,()0()  to  purchase  more.  I  am  gratified  to  state  that 
he  has  made  arrangements  for  a  largenumborof  arms,  part  of  which  have  already  kiu 
delivered.  The  remainder  will  bo  shipped  by  successive  steamers  until  all  shall  liavo 
been  received.* 

A  commission  was  appointed  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
in  Marcli,  18G2,  to  audit  the  contracts  made  by  the  War  Department 
for  ordnance,  arms,  and  ammuiution,  and  in  their  report,  which  was 
laid  before  CongreMS,  the  following  remarks  occur  on  the  steps  rakeu  to 
purchase  arms  abroad : 

First,  as  to  foreign  arms :  it  was  of  course  absolutely  necessary  to  resort  to  these  in 
equipping  within  a  few  months  more  than  r)00,000  men,  and  it  was  impossible  iu  all 
the  workshops  of  Europe  to  have  had  arms  manufactured  as  rapidly  as  our  pnliliem- 
cessities  recjuired.  Under  such  circumstances  prices  naturally  rose,  and  iiiiVrinr 
(often  second-hand)  arms  had  to  some  extent  to  be  purchased.  But  these  diftieultiis 
■were  greatly  aggravated  by  the  lack  of  system  which  prevailed.  The  States  and  the  i 
General  Government  entered  the  market  together  as  rival  purchasers,  and  thus  the 
members  of  the  same  national  family  bid  directly  against  each  other.  Tlie  folly  (il 
this  is  tho  more  remarkable  when  it  is  remembered  that  these  arms  bought  by  the 
States  were,  iu  fact,  for  tho  use  of  the  General  Government,  and  will  no  doubt,  in  the 
end,  be  paid  for  by  it.  The  General  Government  itself  employed  numerous  aga\U 
not  acting  in  unison,  and  often  becoming,  therefore,  competitors  of  each  other.  A  | 
few  of  these  made  purchases  directly  for  the  Government :  the  greater  number  spraiig 
up  in  tho  shape  of  "  middle  men,"  to  whom,  though  not  dealers  in  arms  nor  skilled  in  j 
their  valuoj  contracts  were  awarded  upon  their  own  terms,  only  to  be  sublet  to  the  j 
actual  importers.  *  •  •  *  in  regard  to  a  considerable  portion  of  these  imhfl 
arms,  Government  inspection  was  permitted  in  Europe  before  shipment,  but  so  utterly 
iuadequate  and  so  incompetent  was  the  force  assigned  to  this  duty  that  it  became  a 
more  empty  form  devoid  of  all  utility  or  protection.  Of  this  and  other  negligentts 
and  imprudences,  the  iiractical  result  has  been  that  a  large  proportion  of  our  trooiis 
were  armed  with  guns  of  a  very  inferior  quality ;  that  tens  of  thousands  of  the  refiii^ 
arms  of  Europe  are  at  this  moment  in  our  arsenals,  and  thousands  more  still  to  arrive.- 

Lord  Lyons  Avrote  to  Lord  Eussell  on  the  Uh  of  May,  18G1 :  "  5h.  | 

1  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  vi,  p.  151. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  164. 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    GREAT   BRITAIN. 


209 


me  minister 


Stnvard  sai«l  to  me  on  the  Ist  instant  that  perhaps  he  onj?ht  to  have 
tdlilmo  lic'foie  tliat  the  LTuited  Spates  Go'  ernnient  had  sent  aj^ents  to 
Kiiilliuul  to  i)Ui(;hase  arms.  Jle  added  that  the  agents  wonhl  go  on  to 
Iraiico  tor  the  same  purpose."' 

It  will  he  seen  that  in  tlie  report  of  Captain  ITuse,  wlio  is  stated  to 
liiivebeen  the  confederate  agent  sent  to  Europe  for  a  similar  purpose, 
lit-  iiu';iti()iis  the  United  States  ag«'nts  and  the  agents  of  individual 
>()itlu'rn  States  as  liis  most  formithilde  competitors.  "  Tlieir  orders,'' 
he  says,  "  appear  to  have  been  uidimited,  botli  as  regards  price 
jL']  and  *(piantit.v,  and  they  paid  cash  in  every  instance."^  Further 
on  lie  mentions  that  "the  United  States  agent,  in  tiiis  case  the 
minister,  Mv.  J)ayton,  lias  pun^hased,  within  a  few  days,  30,000  old 
liiiit  lock  muskets,  which  are  to  be  altered  before  they  are  sent  to  the 
United  States." 

The  purchases  of  small  arms  and  other  military  stores  in  England 
were  partly  made  by  authorized  agents  acting  under  the  direct  orders 
ol  tlie  (Jovernment  of  the  United  States,  partly  by  agents  acting  under 
tilt*  orders  of  the  governors  of  particular  States,  and  partly  by  mercan- 
tile tiriiis,  aciting,  however,  in  some  cases  under  the  authority  of  the 
IVderiil  or  States  Government. 

Coinnol  Thomas,  of  the  United  States  Army,  was  mi  England  during 
till'  war,  and  acknowledged  that  he  had  come  over  to  superintend  the 
]iiirt'lias('s  of  military  stores,    lie  sought  and  obtained  much  informa- 
tion Oil  this  subject  at  the  Government  establishment  at  Pimlico.    It 
aiipears,  however,  that  the  agent  mentioned  in  the  report  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  War  was  a  Colonel  G.  L.  S(;huyler.    He  was,  in  July,  1801, 
iipimiiitod  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  "  a  duly  authorized 
aneiit  to  purchase  arms  in  Europe  for  the  War  Department."    He  re- 
ceived his  instructions  from  the  Secretary  of  War,  with  a  meu-oran- 
(Inm  from  General  J.  W.  l{ij)ley,  of  the  Ordnance  Department  at 
Washington,  specif,ving  the  arms  to  be  purchased,  viz:   100,000  ritle- 
luiiskets  with  the  bayonets,  10,000  cavalry  carbines,  10,000  revolv- 
ers, and  20,000  sabers.'    The  financial  arrangements  for  these  pur- 
cliiises  were  to  be  made  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  with  Messrs. 
Baring,  financial   agents  for  the  United    States  in  London,  and  a 
credit  of  $2,000,000  was,  as  has  been  seen,  appropriated  for  the  pur- 
pose.   The  money  was  placed  at  the  order  of  Colonel  Schuyler  and 
the  United  States  ministers  in  France  and  Belgium.'    The  arms  were 
to  be  consigned  to  the  care  of  Mr.  Hiram  Barney,  collector  of  the  port 
of  New  York.    Colonel  Schuyler  proceeded  to  Birmingham,  where,  as 
appears  from  a  report  subsequently  made  by  him  in  April,  1.SG2,  to  the 
Secretary  of  War,  he  purchased  of  the  Small  Arms  Association  13,129 
[long  Enfield  rifles  and  1,880  short  Enfteld  rifles  with  saber  bayonets — in 
nil,  15,000,  all  of  which  arrived  safely  in  the  United  States,  consigned  as 
I  directed  in  his  instructions.    He  also  made  arrangements  there  with 
tlie  American  house  of  Van  Wart,  Sou  &  Co.,  who  had  zealously  co- 
operated with  him  to  procure  arms  for  delivery  early  in  January,  and 
k|io,  between  May,  1801,  and  February  15,  1862,  ordered  from  the  Bir- 
[niinghain  Small  Arms  Company,  and  forwarded  to  Messrs.  Baring,  and 
[Messrs.  George  Wright  &  Co.,  at  Liverpool,  for  shipment  to  the  United 
1  States,  an  aggregate  amount  of  20,540  rifles.    From  England  he  pro- 
|eee(led  to  the  Continent  of  Europe,  where  he  continued  his  purchases; 
I  and  in  a  letter  from  the  War  Department  at  Washington  to  General 

'Appendix  to  Britisli  Case,  vol.  vi,  p.  151. 

*  Appeudix  to  Case  of  United  States,  vol.  vi,  p.  34. 

^Appendix  to  BiitisU  Case,  vol.  vi,  p.  153. 


»» 


>  '  J*  * 


-'f 


■:iii 


:{: 


\U    I' 


^!   1 

J:      ' 


i 

1 

!•        < 

ij    .  i    . 

i   ''~ 

i  • 

ifflHI 

lh> 

fl' 

I  til 

e           -JHI 

270 


TREATY    OF    WASIII!  uTON. 


Kiplcy,  of  tlie  18Mi  Xovoniber,  ISOl,  infoimntioii  is  said  to  Imvc  l)(.(.,i 
nM'<MV«Ml  tVoiii  liim  that  the  steamer  City  of  \Vashiti;;ton  would  h';ivi. 
Liverpool  on  the  0th  of  Novetiiher,  Iiaviii;jf  on  hoard  1L','.>.V»  I'liiticiij 
rilles  from  Dresden,  oOO  sabers,  SOO  revolvers,  one  ease  of  hidlct molds, 
The  steamer  Saxonia,  leaviii}*'  Sonthampton  on  t  ic  (ith,  was  to  luinu 
7, (MM)  cavalry  carbines  and  />(M»  sabers;  the  steamer  Fnlton,  (NuvciiilM'r 
11',)  LMMMM)  iiercnssion  Titles;  the  steamer  leaviniyf  ilafnbur};  on  the  Kth 
of  November,  ;}(),(M)()  more.' 

The  War  Department  had  written  rejjcatedly  and  pressinj;ly  to  ( 'oloiicj 
Schuyler  on  the  subject  of  his  mission.  On  the  I'd  of  Septeinlici'  th, 
Secretary  wrote:  ''We  need  arms;  secure  them  at  any  reasonalde  prjc,. 
and  forward  without  delay."*^  Ajfidn,  on  the  Kith, ''  I  trust  that  notliin;- 
will  delay  a  prompt  delivery  of  the  arms  which  you  have  pmcliiisciL 
You  will  i)lease  express  my  acknowledgments  to  Messrs.  bminj;. 
Brothers  «&  Co.,  for  their  prompt  and  patriotic;  action  in  facilitatiii;' 
your  operations."*  On  the  8th  of  October,  "I  notice,  with  mucii  r('i:m,\ 
that  there  are  no  guns  sent.  #  *  *  #  Prompt  and  early  siiipincnts 
of  guns  are  desirable.  We  hope  to  hear  bv  next  steamer  that  vmi 
have  shipped  from  80,000  to  1(M),(M)0."  And,  on  the  lilstof  October,  | 
"the  Department  earnestly  hopes  to  receive  by  the  Arago  the  li;,(i(ii) 
Entteld  rides,  and  the  remainder  of  the  li7,0(M),  which  you  state  you  have 
l)urchased,  by  the  earliest  steatner  following.  #  *  #  »  Could  ymi 
appreciate  the  circumstances  by  which  we  are  surrounded  you  woiilil 
readily  understand  the  urgent  necessity  there  is  for  the  iunaediati* 
delivery  of  all  the  arms  you  are  authorized  to  imrchase."' 

In  the  summer  or  autumn  of  1801  ]\Ir.  J.  ^{.  Schuyler  and  ^Ir.  Tonics, 
of  the  tirm  of  Schuyler,  Hartley  &  Craham,  of  New  York,  vi.sitcd  Bir 
mingham,  and,  after  comnuniicnting  with  the  princii)al  ritle,  bayoiut, 
and  sword  manufacturers  tliere,  gave  orders  for  as  many  of  tliose 
articles  as  their  respective  manufactories  were  capable  of  sup 
fo3J  plying,  *the  goods  to  be  paid  for  on  delivery  to  them  at  a  place 
to  be  subsequently  named,  or  on  shipment.  ^Messrs.  Schuyler  iiinl 
Tomes  made  no  concealment  of  the  fact  that  these  arms  were  destiiKd 
for  the  American  Government,  and  they  intimated  their  intention  of 
continuing  unlimited  orders  for  a  period  of  two  years.  They  took 
warehouses  in  Birmingham  for  the  receipt  of  the  arms  when  coinpletd. 
and  shipi»ed  them  through  the  agency  of  Messrs.  Baring  Brothers  and 
Messrs.  Brown,  Shipley  &  Co.,  of  Liverpool.  It  ai>pears  from  tlie 
returns  made  to  Congress  of  arms  purchased  by  the  United  States  War 
Department  up  to  December,  1801,  that  8,0o0  rifles  and  232  revolvers 
of  English  manufacture  had  at  that  time  been  sui)plied  by  ^Messrs, 
Schuyler,  Hartley  &  Graham ;  but  Mr.  Schuyler  is  also  believed 
to  have  acted  as  agent  for  the  purchase  of  arms  for  the  State  of  Xe* 
York.  Messrs.  Schuyler  and  Tomes  were  soon  followed  to  Birniingliani 
by  a  Mr.  Lockwood,  of  New  Y'^ork,  who  had  entered  into  a  contract  t'or| 
the  supply  of  rifles,  bayonets,  and  swords  to  the  War  Department  at 
Washington.  He  also  gave  unlimited  orders  fui  such  articles,  actiiig,| 
however,  to  some  extent,  in  concert  with  Messrs.  Schuyler  and  Tomes 
and  shipping  the  goods  through  the  agency  of  the  same  houses  at  Liv- 
erpool. The  effect  of  these  orders  was  to  raise  the  prices  in  the  Birming 
ham  gun-trade  to  the  extent  of  20  per  cent.;  indeed,  the  price  of  rities 
rose  from  528.  to  75«.  each.'' 


'Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  vi,  p.  162. 
2  Ibid.,  p.  1.54. 
•■'Ibid.,  p.  1.55. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  158. 


■»^*i^"i^«imii  <f 


COUNTER   CASE    OF   GREAT    BRITAIN. 


271 


On  tin'  Itli  of  I)('«MMnlM;r,  1801,  it  was  dt'cintMl  expedh^tit  hikUt  «!ir<Miin- 
stiiiu'i'S  tlit'ii  t'xi.stiiiH',  '».s  ii  temporary  lueasiirr  of  precaution  to  prohibit 
;ilto;'t'tlit  r,  by  prot'Iatiiatioii,  the  exitortatioii  of  arms  and  mnnitions  of 
«ar,  ami  Messrs.  Sciinyler  and  Tomes  et)untermand('d  their  orders  in 
(,iii,s('<ni('nee,  tlie  former  proceed inj;'  to  Liej^e,  tlie  latter  remainiiif;'  at 
l!iriiiiii;;Iiam.  The  pro(!lan)ation  was  practically  nnoked  in  the  course 
lit  Jiimiiuy,  and  formally  on  the  7th  of  February,  t.S<;2.  Whih!  it  was  in 
liiiri'it,  of  course,  operated  e(pially  against  both  belli<j;erents. 

It  appears  from  the  report  of  the  commissioner  on  contracts  for  arms 
that,  by  the  concurrent  action  of  the  Sec^retary  of  State,  Assistant  tSec;- 
ritai'V  of  War,  and  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  M.  Laumont  Du  Tout,  of 
the  tirm  of  E.  J.  J)u  Pont  &  Co.,  of  Wilminj'ton,  J)L'laware,  had  twicte 
visitod  Hiiyiand,  furnished  with  a  credit  of  iiSL', 700  7.v.  l<i.  u]»(>n  Messrs. 
r.ariiiii,'  Hrothers,  and  i)urchased  and  shijiped  saltpeter  at  a  cost  of 
£?J,(i!»!l  l(J.v.  8^/.'  The  lari>e  purchases  of  salt[)eter  which  were  nuulo 
toward  the  (dose  of  ^'ovember,  J8()l,  drained  the  whole  Enj^lish  market, 
audit  was  thought  prudent  to  issue  a  pnxdannition  prohibitin<j  the  ex- 
IKiitation  of  that  arti(de,  which  was  subsequently  revoked  at  the  same 
time  as  that  respe<!ting  the  export  of  arms.  Mr.  Adams  wrote  to  Mr. 
.>ie\vard  on  the  L*4th  of  January,  1801' — "  The  only  event  of  any  in.por- 
tiiiiee  connected  with  American  affairs  that  has  happened  dMU'r  the 
last  week  is  the  revocation  of  the  orders  prohibiting  the  exportauna  of 
arms  and  munitions  of  war.  This  will  reUnise  the  large  <piantity  of  salt- 
I peter  in  the  hands  of  parties  here,  and  will  probably  renew  tlv;  activity 
ottlie  confederate  emissaries  in  forwarding  supplies  to  the  i  ugents.''^ 
Mr.  Seward  replied,  on  the  13th  of  February — "It  atlbrds  us  pic;. sure 
to  know  that  the  iidiilKii  ).i  against  the  exportation  of  saltpeter,  ^hich 
j  WHS  so  nnnecesyary,  has  been  resciuded.'" 

Mr.  F.  B.  Crowiiinshield  is  understood  to  have  acted  as  agent  lor  the 

[States  of  Massachusetts  and  Ohio.     His  address  in  London  was  at  the 

I  iiiiiee  of  the  United  States  consuhite,  !No.  07  tlracechurch  street.     The 

liiriningliam  Small-Arms  Company  forwarded  by  his  order  10,-100  rifles 

[to  the  care  of  Messrs.  Baring  Brothers,  at  Liverpool,  ^or  shipment  to 

the  United  States,  between  the  months  of  May  and  December,  18G1. 

Mr.  Crowiiinshield  also  ordered  huge  quantities  of  arms  and  10,000  sets 

of  military  accoutermeuts  from  firms  in  Loudon,  which  were  forwarded 

|aiidsliip|»ed  from  Liverpool  and  Southampton.* 

Besides  these  purcliases  many  were  made  by  private  firms,  who  sold 
I  or  contracted  to  supply  arms  to  the  (joveiiiment  of  the  United  States. 
On  the  Uth  of  January-,  18U2,  Mr.  Donald  McCay  wrote  to  Earl 
jliiissell,  stating  that  he  had  lately  come  to  England  with  the  intention 
lot  imrcdiasing  maiine  steam-engines  and  iron  armor-plates  for  men-of- 
\nt  sliip.s,  but  that  the  manufacturers  who  could  furnish  them  objected 
[to enter  into  any  contract  on  account  of  the  possible  risks  in  shi[jping 
[these  articles,  lie  inquired  whether  Her  INIajesty's  government  would 
[allow  the  shipment  of  them  to  the  United  States.  Missis.  James  Jack 
[4:  Co.,  a  manufacturing  firm  of  Liveri)ool,  wrote,  on  the  lOth  of  the 
same  month,  stating  that  they  were  offered  orders  on  behalf  of  the 
[Guveinment  of  the  Uuited  States  for  the  construction  of  gun-boat 
[towers  and  armor-plates,  and  asking  whether  it  would  be  consiilered 
jiinproper  for  them,  as  British  subjects,  to  undertake  the  execution  of 
'  ese  works  'at  the  time.    Both  applicants  were  informed   that  there 


'  Apjtendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  vi,  p.  173. 

-  Appendix  to  Uuited  States  Case,  vol.  i,  p.  521. 

3  Ibid,  p.  5-i3. 

••  Appeudix  to  British  Case,  vol.  vi,  pp.  182,  189-191, 197. 


..     V 


272 


TREATY   OP  WASHINGTON. 


was  not  any  impediment  to  their  undertaking  such  works  or  ship. 
meuts.^ 

The  Liverpool,  New  York  and  Philadelphia  Steamship  Com. 
[54]      pany  addressed  Lord  liussell  *ou  the  31st  of  January,  on  the 
question  of  the  exportation  of  arms  to  the  United  States.   Tliiv 
said  that,  on  the  issue  of  the  Queen's  proclamation  of  the  13th  Mav. 
18G1,  they  had  given*  notice  to  all  their  shippers  that  they  could  not  | 
carry  contraband  of  war.    Tliey  had  subsequently  been  asked  to  earn 
forward  the  cargo  of  the  steamer  Bremen,  built  in  England,  but  sailiirff  j 
under  the  Bremen  flag,  and  a  competitor  with  them  in  the  Atlantic 
trade,  which  they  had  engaged  to  do,  but  finding  on  the  arrival  of  tlie 
cargo  at  Hull,  en  route  for  Liverpool,  that  it  comprised  about  COOcasosI 
of  rifles,  they  refused  to  carry  them.    A  somewhat  similar  ease  Im 
occurred  with  goods  from  Antwerp.    On  their  refusing  to  carry  these  | 
goods  they  had  received  information  from  the  Continent  that,  if  tlicv 
would  not  do  it,  the  goods  would  be  sent  to  London,  and  thence  by  I 
railway  to  Southampton,  whence  there  was  no  difficulty  in  sliippinj; 
them   by  the  Hamburg  company's  steamers,  (built  in  Englnnd,  but 
sailing  under  the  Hamburg  flag,)  and  they  had  reason  to  believe  tliat| 
this  course  had  been  regularly  adopted,  and  that  the  arms  they  hail 
refused  to  carry  the  day  before  were  being  ship[»ed  that  day  by  another  i 
British  steam-conveyance  from  Liverpool.    They  found  that  their  own  j 
refusal  had  tended  to  prejudice  them  with  their  customers,  and  par  I 
ticularly  with  the  United  States  Government,  who  had  transferred  tliej 
mail  service  from  them  to  the  German  companies.    The  reply  to  the! 
company,  dated  the  12th  of  February,  merely  referred  them  to  tliej 
Oazette  of  the  7th  of  that  month,  whereby  the  temporary  prohibition  ofj 
the  export  of  munitions  of  war  had  been  fornmlly  removed.^ 

A  statement  made  by  Lord  Eussell  to  Mr.  Adams,  and  the  reph  ofl 
the  latter,  are  recorded  in  a  dispatch  to  Lord  Lyons  of  the  19th  Decenif 
ber,  1801,  as  follows : 

In  regard  to  the  export  of  arins  and  ammunition  to  tlie  Confederate  States,  I 
lately  read  the  opinion  of  the  attorney -jfeneral,^  and  believed  it  was  in  entire  confonul 
ity  with  the  provisions  of  the  foreign-enlistment  act:  warlike  equipment  of  a vt'ss.l| 
was  prohibited ;  the  loading  a  vessel  with  arms  and  ammunition  was  not  proliibitnil 
But  in  point  of  fact  a  much  greater  amount  of  arms  and  ammunition  had  been  siuttol 
the  Federal  States,  where  there  was  no  obstacle  to  the  export  or  the  import,  than  totliel 
ports  of  the  Confederate  States,  which  were  blockaded.  Mr.  Adams  adniitted  tliisic 
be  the  fact,  and  said  ho  had  refrained  from  pressing  a  more  rigorous  compliauce  witli| 
the  foreign-enlistmeut  act  for  this  reason.^ 

Lord  Russell  returned  to  the  subject  in  a  conversation  which  ni 
reported  by  Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward  on  the  22d  .May,  18G2.=  3IrJ 
Adams,  in  compliance  with  instructions  from  his  Government,  haJ 
pressed  on  Lord  Russell  the  expediency  of  revoking  the  recognition  ol 
the  belligerent  status  of  the  confederate  government,  and  had  men 
tioned,  in  connection  with  this  subject,  the  irritation  produced  in  thj 
United  States  by  the  reports  of  supplies  furnished  by  private  perso 
in  England  to  the  confederates.  Lord  Russell  said  "that  large  supplifj 
of  similar  materials  had  been  obtained  in  England  on  the  part  of  tl)J 
United  States,  which  had  been  freely  transported  and  eftectively  ti* 
against  the  insurgents."  "I  answered,"  said  Mr.  Adams,  " by  adniitj 
ting  that  at  one  time  a  quantity  of  arms  and  military  stores  had  bwij 

'  A])pendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  vi,  pp.  159,  160.  • 

*  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  vi,  pp.  1G0-1C2. 

^  This  was,  no  doubt,  in  the  case  of  the  Bermuda.    See  Appendix  to  British  C'aaj 
vol.  ii,  p.  rw. 
••  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  vi,  p.  l.'>9. 
'>  Appendix  to  Case  of  Uuited  States,  vol.  i,  p.  536. 


^ww 


COUNTER  CASE   OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


273 


■ks  or  r    I  piircl'iistHl  here  as  a  purely  commercial  transaction,  for  the  use  of  the 
snip-  ^m  „  ,      1  ,\,.,nv.  hilt  that   I   had   earlv  ohipo.tpd   to  this   uractino  for  the 


msliip  Com. 
ary.  on  the 
•ates.  TliW 
a  13th  May, 
ey  could  not 
bed  to  carry 
i,  but  sailing 
the  Atlantic] 
.rrival  of  tlie 
)ut  000  cases  | 
lar  case  lia 
3  carry  tliwe  I 
that,  if  they 
id  thence  by 
■  in  sliippind 
England,  but] 
»  believe  tliat 
ms  they  liail 
ly  by  anotberj 
lat  their  own 
ers,  and  parf 
ausferredtliel 
I  reply  to  tbel 
them  to  tlifl 
prohibition  of  I 

1  the  reply  ofl 
19th  Decem-f 

lie  States,  I 
I  entire  couforni-l 
inieiit  of  a  vi'ss«l| 

not  proliil'itfJ 
had  been  siuttol 

[)ort,tlianto:lit| 
iulniitted  tliiswl 
couipliauce  witli[ 

m  which  wai 
^•,  1802.5  yA 
ernment,  Iwl 

recosiiitio"  \ 
\\<\  had  nieiil 

dnced  in  th(f 
•ivate  pers 
large  suppbej 

\e  part  of  tlij 

ectively  usr 
is.  »  by  adiiii] 

res  had  beef 


to  British  Cd 


Federal  Army,  but  that  1  had  early  objected  to  this  practice  for  the 
reason  that  it  prevented  me  from  pressing  my  remonstrances  against  a 
very  different  class  of  operations  carried  on  by  friends  and  sympathizers 
nith  the  rebels  in  this  island,  and  it  had  been  discoutinuetl.  We  had, 
indeed,  purchased  largely  in  Austria,  but  that  government  bad  never 
.riven  any  countenance  to  the  insurgents."  Jjord  liussell's  views  are 
men  in  a  note  to  Mr.  Adams  of  the  17th  May,  inclosed  in  this  dispatch. 
'  It  may  be  observed  that  the  agents  of  the  confederate  government, 
if  the  correspondence  presented  by  the  United  States  is  to  be  believed, 
liad  themselves  at  this  time  been  drawing  supplies  from  Austria,  and 
tlnit  Major  Huse  had  been  endeavoring  to  ship  ten  batteries  of  Austrian 
field-guns  at  Hamburg,  and  was  about  to  invest  in  20,000  Austrian 
ritles  then  in  the  Vienna  arsenal.^ 

Mr.  Adams  was,  however,  mistaken  in  supposing  that  the  practice  of 
buying  arms  in  England  for  the  United  States  Government  had  been 
discontinued. 

Messrs.  Naylor,  Tickers  &  Co.,  of  New  York,  Liverpool,  and  London, 
bought  and  shipped  to  the  United  States  large  quantities  of  small-arms. 
They  wore  supplied  from  Birmingham  alone  with  150,000  rilies  between 
Jnne,  1802,  and  July,  1863.  They  acted  very  extensively  as  agents  of 
the  United  States  Government,  and  submitted  to  that  Government 
large  proposals  from  the  Birmingham  Small- Arms  Company,  The  Assist- 
ant Secretary  of  War  at  Washington,  in  a  letter  addressed  to 
[w]  them  on  the  20th  October,  1802,  ♦directly  sanctioned  an  arrange- 
ment for  the  supply  of  100,000  rifles,  and  the  acceptance  of  this 
order  was  duly  notified  to  the  Secretary  of  War  by  a  letter  from  Bir- 
mingham, dated  November  4,  1802.  The  arms  were  sent  to  Liverpool 
lor  shipment.  In  December,  1803,  fifty  08-pounder  guns  were  proved 
at  the  royal  arsenal  at  Woolwich,  at  the  request  of  Messrs.  T.  and  C. 
Hood,  and  after  proof  taken  away  by  Messrs.  Naylor  &  Co.,  and  shipped 
to  New  York.  Mr.  Marcellus  Hartley,  of  the  firm  of  Schuyler,  IFartley 
&  Graham,  already  mentioned,  was  also  a  large  j)nrchaser  of  small- 
arms  iu  London  during  the  latter  half  of  the  year  1802.^ 

The  general  results  of  these  operations  may  be  traced  in  the  oflicial 
returns  of  exports  from  Great  Biitain  to  the  northern  ports  of  the 
United  States,  published  by  the  board  of  trade. 

These  show  that,  whereas  the  average  yearly  exports  of  small-arms 
to  those  ])orts  for  the  vears  1858, 1859,  and  1800,  were  18,329,  they  rose, 
ii!  1801,  to  44,904;  in  1802,  to  343,304;  and  amounted,  in  1803,  to 
124,928.  These  are  the  recorded  shipments  of  small-arms;  but  there  is 
reason  to  believe  that  other  shii)ments,  to  a  considerable  extent,  were 
made  under  the  denomination  of  hardware.  Of  exports  of  [»arts  of 
arms  there  is  no  record  prior  to  1802,  In  that  vear  they  were  valued 
at  £21,050;  in  1803,  they  rose  to  £01,589;  in  1804,  they  still  amounted 
to  £10,010 ;  and  the  average  for  subsequent  years  has  sunk  to  £4,249. 

Of  percussion -caps,  the  average  export  in  the  years  1858,  1859,  and 
1^1)0,  was  55.02(),00(^ ;  in  1803  it  rose  to  171,427,000;  and,  in  1804,  was 
1"-,.187,000.  Of  cannon  and  other  ordnance,  the  exports  in  the  year 
i'^'U  alone  were  valued  ai  £82,920;  while  the  aggregate  value  of  the 
ixports  for  the  other  nine  years,  from  1858  to  1801,  and  from  1803  to 
1^117,  was  but  £3,330. 

The  exports  of  saltpeter  for  the  years  1858  to  1801  had  averaged  248 
tons  yearly.    The  purchases  for  the  United  States  Government  raised 

'  See  Appendix  to  Case  of  +'ic  United  States,  vol.  i,  p.  539 ;  vol.  vi,  p.  <)9. 
•Appendix  to  British  Cane,  vol.  vi,  pp.  188-H);5. 

18  A— II 


'^t 


:4 


274 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


in-r 


the  amount  to  3,189  tons  for  the  year  18G2  alone.  From  1863  to  1867 
the  yearly  average  has  again  sunk  to  128  tons.  In  addition  to  the  ex- 
ports from  England,  there  was  shipped  from  India,  direct  to  the  north 
ern  ports  of  America,  a  total  of  39,840  tons,  between  the  years  18G(> 
and  1866,  both  inclusive.  < 

The  amount  of  lead  shipped,  which  had  averaged  2,810  tons  yearly, 
rose,  in  18G2  and  1864,  to  13,148  and  11,786  tons  respectively. 

The  exports  of  ready-made  clothing,  ajiparel,  &c.,  also  rose,  in  180} 
and  1864,  to  double  the  average  amount,  in  consequence,  as  raay  legitj. 
mately  be  presumed,  of  the  supplies  required  for  the  United  States 
Army. 

It  is  estimated  that  the  extra  supplies  of  warlike  stores  thus  exported 
to  the  northern  ports  of  the  United  States  during  the  civil  war  rt'j)re- 
sent  a  value  of  not  less  than  £2,000,000,  of  which  £.500,000  was  tlir 
value  of  muskets  and  rities  alone. 

On  referring  to  the  published  statistics  of  imports  into  tbc  United 
States,  a  similar  increase  will  be  observed.  The  value  of  arms  imported 
from  England  into  the  United  States  is  there  given  for  the  vears  endiii;; 
June  30,  1800  and  1861,  at  $281  998,  and  $257,055  respectively.  In  the 
succeeding  year  the  imports  of  arms  amounted  to  an  estimated  value 
of  $1,112,098;  in  the  year  ending  June  30,  1863,  to  8717,409;  and  in 
that  ending  June  30,  1864,  to  $409,887.  But,  in  addition  to  these  eii 
tries,  there  is  a  table  given  in  the  returns  of  duty  free  imports,  under 
the  heading  of  "  Articles  of  all  kinds  for  the  use  of  the  United  States." 
During  the  two  years  ending  June  30, 1860  and  1861,  no  such  article*; 
were  returned  as  imported  from  England ;  but  in  the  years  ending  Juin' 
^0,  1862  and  1863,  amounts  of  $3,316,492  and  $6,778,S5t;  are  entered 
under  this  heading  ;  and  in  the  two  succeeding  years  the  articles  thus 
imported  from  Great  Jiritain  still  reached  the  estimated  value  of 
$1,568,407  and  $1,853,773  respectively.  That  a  large  proportion,  if  not 
the  whole,  of  these  imports  consisted  of  materials  for  tLe  supply  of  tie 
military  forces  of  the  United  States  cannot  admit  of  a  doubt.' 

We  see  then  that,  during  the  civil  war,  i  ^ms  and  military  supidiesot 
all  kinds  in  very  large  quantities  were  jmrchased  in  England,  France. 
Austria,  and  other  neutral  countries  by  the  Government  of  the  United 
States;  thak  they  must  h.ave  exceedetl  in  amount  any  supplies  wljioh 
could  reach  the  Confederate  States ;  that  these  [uirchases  were  of  tbe 
most  pressing  necessity,  especially  during  the  earlier  years  of  the  war; 
that  they  were  etifected  by  agents  employed  by  that  Government,  .some 
of  whom  were  officers  in  its  military  service  ;  that  arrangements  vere 
made  tor  the  regular  shipment  from  England  to  the  United  State.**  ot 
the  goods  so  i>urcha8ed  from  tirje  to  time ;  and  that  the  goods  purchased 
in  England  were  paid  for  through  the  financial  agents  of  the  American 
Government  in  England.  In  the  sense,  therefore,  in  which  these 
[56]  expressions  are  used  by  the  *Government  of  the  United  States 
in  its  Ctise,  that  Government  had  in  England  during  the  war  a 
branch  of  its  War  Department  and  a  branch  of  its  Treasury — that  is. 
persons  employed  by  the  War  Department  in  selecting,  ordering,  and 
procuring  arms  and  military  supplies,  and  causing  them  to  be  shipped 
to  America,  and  financial  agents  of  the  Treasury,  through  whom  its 
payments  were  made,  and  who  were  provided  by  it  with  funds  for  that 
purpose.  In  the  sense  in  which  Great  Britain  is  said  to  have  become  the 
arsenal  and  treasury  of  the  Confederate  States,  she  became  the  arsenal 
and  treasury  of  the  United  States.  Had  tbe  confederacy  and  its  agents 
filled,  in  the  foregoing  transactions,  the  parts  actually  sustained  by  the 

'  Stiu  returus,  Ibid.,  pp.  200,  203. 


COUNTER   CASE   OP   GREAT   BRITAIN. 


275 


United  States  and  their  agents,  we  should  have  a  narrative  differing  in 
no  material  respect  from  the  story  of  confederate  purchases  and  ship- 
ments told  in  the  American  Case. 

ARMS  AND    MILITARY    SUPPLIES   PURCHASED  BY  THE  CONFEDERATE 

STATES. 


Arms  iirul  military 
HtipplifA  piirc'huHeit 
l)y  th«  Confederate 
StuteB. 


The  Government  of  the  United  States  has  not  fnrnished  the  arbitra 
tors  with  an  account  of  the  names  and  operations  of  the 
agents  employed  by  it  for  the  above-mentioned  jjurposes 
daring  the  war ;  and  it  has,  therefore,  been  necessary  to 
supply  that  omission,  although  the  means  of  doing  so  possessed  by  Her 
Majesty's  government  are  very  imperfect.  Of  the  operations  of  the 
persons  employed  by  the  other  belligerent,  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  has,  on  the  other  hand,  given  a  very  long  and  circum- 
stantial history,  purporting  to  be  drawn  from  the  papers  which  camo 
into  its  possession  at  the  end  of  the  wfj.  It  is  not,  and  indeed  it  could 
not  be,  pretended  that  the  correspondence  extracted  from  these  papers 
was  in  any  way  known  to  th^  British  government.  Nor  has  the  Gov- 
eiumeut  of  the  United  States  furnished  the  arbitrators  with  any  means 
ofjudging  whether  the  letters  are  authentic,  or  the  facts  stated  in  them 
true,  or  the  i)ersons  whose  names  purport  to  be  attached  to  them  (per- 
sons entirely  unknown  to  the  British  government)  worthy  of  credit. 
Her  Majesty's  government  thinks  it  right  to  say  that  it  attaches  very 
little  credit  to  them. 

Tliere  is,  however,  no  reason  to  doubt  that  th^  confederate  govern- 
ment, during  the  whole  course  of  the  war,  eftected  jmrchases  of  arms 
and  munitions  of  war  to  a  considerable  amount  through  its  agents  in 
Knglaud,  France,  Austria,  and  elsewhere.  And  it  is  now  well  known 
that,  as  its  financial  agents  for  this  and  other  purposes,  it  employed  the 
mercantile  house  of  Fraser,  Trenholm  &  Co.,  which  was  established  at 
Liverpool,  in  connection  with  a  firm  at  Charleston.  The  circumstance 
is  stated  as  follows  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States :  "  Before  or  about 
tlie  time  the  insurrection  broke  out,  and,  as  the  United  States  believe, 
in  anticipation  of  it,  this  house  (the  Charleston  house  of  John  Fraser  «& 
Co.)  established  a  branch  in  Liverpool,  under  the  name  of  Fraser,  Tren- 
bjlm  &  Co.  Prioleau  was  dispatched  thither  to  take  charge  of  the  Liver- 
pool business,  and  became,  for  purposes  that  may  easily  be  imagined,  a 
uaturalized  British  subject."'  Her  Majesty's  government  finds,  on  in- 
quiry, that  Prioleau,  in  fact,  settled  himself  as  a  merchant  in  Liverpool 
iu  1854,  and  remained  in  England,  except  during  a  temporary  absence 
of  a  lew  months,  from  that  time  till  June,  18G3,  when  he  applied  for 
iiatnralization,  stating,  iu  his  application,  that  he  had  been  a  resident 
liouseholder  for  eight  years,  had  married  an  English  wife,  and  was  de- 
sirous of  acquiring  landed  property  in  England,  and  residing  there  per- 
manently.^ What  further  motives  for  this  step  a  fertile  imagination 
luight  discover  Her  Majesty's  government  cannot  say.  The  advantages 
conferred  at  that  time  by  naturalization  in  England  were  the  legal 
capacity  to  hold  immovable  property,  and  to  register  vessels  as  a  British 
owner.  None  of  the  vessels,  however,  to  which  this  inquiry  relates, 
were  registered  in  the  name  of  Prioleau,  nor  in  that  of  his  firm.  In 
truth,  all  of  them,  except  the  Shenandoah,  with  which  the  firm  appears 
I  to  have  ha<l  nothing  to  do,  had  sailed  long  before  Prioleau  became  a 

'  Case  of  the  United  States,  p.  'i-^O. 

'^  Appeudix  to  British  Case,  vol.  v,  p.  202. 


» 


1 1 


M 


iVS 


276 


TREATY   OF    WASHINGTON. 


El! '  :■■ 


,     :     ;,J 


1  i.  i 


British  subject.  Tho  motives  stated  in  the  application  were  i)r()li;il)iv 
the  real  ones,  since  the  applicant  appears  to  have  continued  to  reside  in 
England. 

It  would  be  a  waste  of  time  to  for.ow  the  Governmeut  of  the  United 
States  into  the  details  of  the  various  shipments  made  from  Ensland  on 
confederate  account.  Both  belligerents  were  lei't  free  to  pnrcliasc  and 
ship  munitions  of  war,  and  both  availed  then)selves  of  that  lil»ertv. 
The  suggestion  that  such  transactions  were  in  progress  called  for  no  in 
qniry  on  the  ])art  of  the  British  government,  and  the  tranfaotions 
themselves,  had  they  been  known  to  it,  would  have  called  for  no  inter- 
ference. 

The  same  observation  api)lies  to  the  expedients  for  raising  nioiioy 
which  were  ado])ted  <luring  the  later  years  of  the  war.  The  Confed 
erate  States,  being  del)arred  by  the  blockade  from  exporting  their  pro 
duce  to  Europe,  endeavored  to  procure  funds  in  England.  France,  and 
elsewhere,  by  hy]>othecating  stocks  of  cotton,  stored  for  exporta 
[57]  tion,  and  to  be  *delivered  after  the  conclusion  of  the  war.  The 
agent  employed  in  England  for  this  purpose  was  a  merchant  rcsi 
dent  at  Liverpool.  Other  agents  were  employed  in  Paris.  Xo  action 
or  suit  at  law  founded  on  transactions  of  this  kind  could  have  been 
sustained  in  England,  either  by  or  against  the  confederate  governinoiit: 
since  it  had  not  been  recognized  by  Great  Britain.  But  it  was  not  the 
duiy,  nor  was  it  within  the  legal  power  of  the  liritish  government  to 
prohibit  or  prevent  them,  as  it  could  not  have  prevented  its  subjects 
from  subscribing  to  the  vast  war-loans  which  were  raised  from  time  to 
time  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  and  were  largely  held  in 
Europe.  Those  who  advanced  their  money  to  the  Confederate  States 
ilid  so  at  the  risk  of  losing  it,  if  the  confederacy  should  be  overthrown, 
iind  they  have  lost  it  accordingly.' 

Pressed  by  the  «lilliculty  of  dis,tiuguisliing  between  their  own  oj)ei;i 
tions  in  Euroi>e  and  those  of  the  Confeia-rate  States  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  make  it  appear  that  the  British  government  was  bound  to  gi''' 
free  scope  to  the  former  and  repress  the  latter,  the  United  States apixar 
to  imagine  that  they  have  found  such  a  distinction  in  two  circumstances. 
One  of  these  is,  that  the  needs  of  the  confederacy  were,  as  theyalle^'e. 
more  urgent  than  those  of  the  Union ;  the  fornun'  could  only  obtain 
their  military  Siipjdies  from  abroad;  the  latter  could  manufacture  souif 
of  theirs  at  home.^  The  other  is,  that  the  United  Stures,  having  tbe 
command  of  the  sea,  could  transport  the  goods  purchased  by  them 
freely  and  openly,  or  (as  it  is  expressed)  "  in  the  ordinary  course  of 
commerce;"'  while  the  confederates  were  obliged  to  "originate  acorn 
raerce  for  the  purpose" — that  is,  to  get  their  goods  transported  by  way 
of  Nassau  and  Bermuda,  which  are  commonly  places  of  no  great  trade- 
and  further  to  make  use  of  those  concealments  by  which  the  trattic  in 
contraband  of  war,  when  not  protected  by  a  powerful  navy,  usually 
tries  to  elude  the  vigilance  of  the  enemy's  cruisers. 


'The  iiriuc'iplc  is  clearly  stated  by  Heti'ter,  section  148,  in  tlio  passage  cited  VieldW, 
(Annex  A.) 

It  liiis  been  fully  recognized  by  tlio  United  States.  The  following  extriut  l'n;n:i 
note  of  Mr.  Webster's  was  cited  and  adopted  by  Mr.  Seward  in  answering  a  c(iniiil;ii:i' 
of  the  Mexican  minister  in  1862: 

"  As  to  advances,  loans,  or  donations  of  money  to  the  government  of  Tex.ts,  oi  :b 
citizens,  the  Mexican  government  hardly  needs  to  be  informed  that  tliere  is  iidlliin!; 
nnlawfnl  in  this  ,so  long  as  Texas  is  at  peace  with  the  I'nitetl  States,  and  that  tlnw 
are  things  which  no  government  undertake*  to  restrain.'" — Appendix  to  ca.'^f  »•'  I'l  iti'l 
iStatcs.  vol.  i,  p.  'yH'J. 

a'ase  of  the  I  iiited  States,  pp.  310-312. 


'■■'\^  wwrn'mr^ 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    GREAT   BRITAIN. 


277 


■h-m- 


Are  we  then  to  understand  tbat,  according  to  the  views  put  forward 
in  the  Case  of  the  United  States,  the  "strict  and  impartial  neutrality 
towards  both  belligerents,"'  which  it  is  the  duty  of  a  neutral  government 
to  maintain,  obliges  it  to  find  out  which  of  the  two  stands  in  the  greater 
need  of  supplies,  and  consists  in  lending  aid,  by  measures  of  repression, 
to  the  belligerent  whose  force  is  the  greater  and  his  wants  the  less 
pressing  of  the  two,  and  thus  assisting  him  to  crush  more  speedily  the 
resistance  of  his  weaker  enemy'?  Her  Majesty's  government  is  unable 
to  assent  to  this  novel  opinion,  advantageous  as  it  would  doubtless  prove 
to  states  which,  like  Great  Britain,  possess  a  powerful  navy.  To  hold 
aa  even  hand  between  the  two ;  to  leav^e  the  trade  open  to  both  equally 
or  close  it  to  both  alike ;  to  leave  the  stronger  free  to  profit  by  his 
strength,  .and  the  weaker  to  elude,  as  best  he  may,  the  superiority  of 
liis  euemy  on  the  high  seas,  has  commonly  been  regarded  as  the  only 
(ourse  consistent  with  impartial  neutrality,  and  this  was  the  course 
steadily  pursued  by  Great  Britain. 

The  transportation  of  militarj^  supplies  was  equally  a  contraband  com- 
merce, whether  carried  on  openly  or  covertly,  from  Liverpool  or  London 
or  from  Nassau.  It  is  asserted  by  the  United  States  that  the  contra- 
hand  trade  between  England  and  Nassau  was  "  covered  by  the  British 
flag,"  and  that  this,  coupled  with  the  protection  aflbrded  by  Her  Majesty's 
joverument  to  the  confederate  agents  in  England,  "deprived  the  United 
States  of  the  benefit  of  their  superiority  at  sea.'"  Her  Majesty's  gov- 
ernment does  not  understand  the  United  States  as  alleging  either  that 
any  protection  was  afibrded  to  the  agents  of  the  Confederate  States  in 
Eiifjland  which  was  not  extended  also  to  those  of  the  United  States,  or 
that  contraband  trade  under  the  British  flag  was  protected  against 
search  and  capture  at  sea.  Both  of  these  assertions  would  be  unfounded : 
but  the  language  employed  is  calculated  to  produce  this  erroneous  im- 
pression on  the  minds  of  the  arbitrators.  The  agents  of  both  parties 
lU  Great  Britain  enjoyed  alike  that  protection,  and  no  more,  which  per- 
sons resident  or  commorant  here  derive  from  the  laws  under  which  they 
live.  Ships  carrying  between  Liverpool  or  London  and  Nassau  military 
supplies  destined  for  the  Confederate  States  were  not,  in  fact,  protected 
by  the  British  flag,  but  were  left  to  be  dealt  with  on  the  principles  of 
international  law,  as  administered  in  the  prize-courts  of  the  United 
States,  equally  with  those  bound  directly  for  confederate  ports.  Her 
Majesty's  government,  with  a  powerful  navy  at  its  command,  abstained 
troin  all  interference,  confining  itself  to  a  remonstrance,  conveyed  in  very 

moderate  terms,  when  there  appeared  reason  to  apprehend  that 
|5Sj     *  the  United  States  cruisers,  in   their  eagerness  to  make  prizes, 

m'ght  harass  unduly  the  regular  and  legitimate  commerce  of 
(treat  Britain. 


■,.  "i-   -i 


"■:\ 


BLOCKAI>E-it|TNNING  AND  THE  NASSAU  TRADE. 


The  sea-coast  of  the  Southern  States  being  blockaded,  though  the  block- 
ade was  for  a  long  time  imperfect,  importers  of  goods  into  Bio.k,,.i.  runni..« 
tliose  States  were  exposed,  if  the  goods  were  contraband,  to  a  »"it''eNu..aui«a. 
double  risk  of  capture,  which  increased  or  diminished  according  to  the 
length  of  the  voyage.  The  island  of  New  Providence,  from  its  compara- 
tive nearness  to  the  blockaded  coast,  offered  some  special  facilities  for 
the  traffic,  and  large  quantities  of  goods  were  sent  to  it  as  the  war  went  on, 
with  a  view  either  to  their  being  sold  in  the  island  to  customers  buying 


'  Case  of  the  United  States,  p.  312. 


278 


TREATY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


n.r: 


li  i 


r  i'f 


m. 


i'fe 


for  the  southern  market,  or  to  their  being  forwarded  direct  to  one  or  other 
of  the  blockaded  ports.  Havana  and  Cardenas,  in  the  Spanish  island  of 
Cuba,  were  made  use  of  for  a  like  purjwse,  and  a  confederate  agent  is 
stated  to  have  been  resident  there.  In  this  there  was  nothing  which 
the  British  government  was  bound  or  legally  empowered  to  prohibit, 
nor  was  any  such  obligation  incumbent  on  the  government  of  Spain! 
Persons  trading  either  with  the  Southern  States  or  with  those  which 
adhered  to  the  Union  were  free  to  use  Nassau,  as  they  were  free  to  use 
any  other  port  in  the  British  dominions  convenient  for  their  purpose. 
Traffic  of  the  former  kind  was  diflflcult  and  i)recarious,  while  that  of  the 
latter  kind  was  safe  and  easy,  and  could  be  carried  on  from  Liverpool 
or  Halifax  with  more  convenience  and  security  than  from  Bermuda  or 
Nassau.  But  this  difterence  imposed  no  special  obligations  ou  the 
British  government  in  regard  to  either  the  one  or  the  other. 

One  tangible  ground  of  complaint  the  United  States  believe  them 
selves  to  have  discovered  in  the  circumstance  that  merchant  ships  ar 
riving  at  Nassau  were  able  to  break  bulk  there,  and  transship  their 
cargoes  without  a  hona-Jide  importation  into  the  colony.  It  is  repre 
sented  that  this  became  a  constant  practice  with  vessels  transportiui; 
goods  for  the  confederates;  and  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
"asks  the  tribunal  to  find"  that  the  permission  to  do  it  "was  a  viola 
tion  of  the  duties  of  a  neutral."  That  the  tribunal  is  invested  with  iin 
authority  to  decide  this  question,  either  in  favor  of  the  United  States  or 
against  them,  it  is  needless  to  say. 

It  is  asserted  by  the  United  States  that  the  permission  was  given  (or. 
in  other  words,  that  a  previously  existing  prohibition  of  transsliipmeiit 
wiihin  the  limits  of  the  colony  was  removed)  by  an  act  of  the  colonial 
government.  In  proof  of  this  it  relies  upon  an  intercepted  letter,  pur- 
porting to  be  written  by  a  confederate  agent.  That  it  was  an  indul 
gence  granted,  exclusively  or  especially,  to  vessels  trading  with  the  Con- 
federate States,  is  not  asserted;  though,  under  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  it  might  be  expected  to  work  principally  in  their  favor. 

No  information  of  such  an  act  ou  the  part  of  the  authorities  of  the 
colony  ever  reached  Her  Majesty's  government.  It  was  not  complained 
of  at  the  time  either  by  the  consul  at  Nassau  or  by  the  minister  of  the 
United  States  in  London,  although  the  fact  that  transshipments  were 
taking  place  was  at  a  later  period  mentioned  as  a  grievance.  From  the 
general  character  of  Mr.  Whiting's  correspondence,  and  from  his  activ 
ity  in  discovering  injuries  and  affronts  even  where  none  existed,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that,  had  the  permission  been  given,  and  had  it  pos 
sessed  the  importance  which  the  United  States  now  attributes  to  it,  he 
would  instantly  have  made  it  a  matter  of  expostulation  and  complaiut, 
and  it  would  have  been  promptly  brought  to  the  notice  of  Her  Majesty's 
government  by  Mr.  Adams.  But  even  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  itself,  which  was  in  constant  correspondence  with  Mr.  Whitinjf, 
appears  to  have  known  nothing  about  the  matter,  and  now  produces,  iu 
support  of  a  complaint  which  it  regards  as  serious  enough  to  demand  a 
judgment  from  the  tribunal,  no  evidence  beyond  a  loosely-worded  sen 
tence  occurring  in  a  letter  purporting  to  be  written  by  a  confederate 
agent ;  while  of  this  letter,  and  the  time  at  which  it  came  into  the  pos 
session  of  the  United  States,  no  better  account  is  given  than  that  it  is 
one  of  a  large  number  "captured  at  the  taking  of  Eichmond  and  at  other 
times. " 

Her  Majesty's  government  has  now  ascertain  ad  on  inquiry  that  the 
statement  is  erroneous.  The  fiscal  regulations  of  the  colony  prohibited 
the  transshipment  of  goods  within  its  limits  unless  the  goods  were  landed 


i'PWIlM 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


279 


for  exaiuinatiou  by  the  officers  of  customs.  Goods  so  lauded  might  be 
immediately  resbipped  from  the  same  wharf  for  exportation  in  the  same 
vessel,  or  ii  others,  at  the  choice  of  the  shipper.  The  prohibition  (which 
existed  onl^'  for  fiscal  purposes)  might,  in  any  case,  be  dispensed  with 
by  permission  granted  by  the  receiver-general.  This  permission  had 
been  customarily  granted  as  a  matter  of  course  in  the  case  of  goods 
stated  to  be  in  transit,  and  it  was  accorded  frequently  during  the  war. 
The  first  application  was  made  ou  the  l{)th  December,  1861,  in 
;j9J  the  case  of  the  *Eliza  liousell,  a  vessel  laden,  not  witli  contra- 
band of  war  but  with  an  assorted  cargo  ;  and  after  a  reference  to 
the  governor  and  council,  it  was  gi'anted,  the  receiver  being  satisfied 
that  the  goods  could  be  examined  on  board  as  well  as  if  they  had  been 
placed  ou  the  wharf.'  Ko  permission  appears  to  have  been  granted  in 
the  case  of  the  Gladiator,  nor  does  it  appear  whether  her  cargo  was  or 
was  not  landed  before  exportation.  The  jnohibition  was  not  removed 
or  aioditled,  and  no  change  was  made  in  the  regulations.  Had  it  been 
removed,  however,  the  fact  would  have  ha<l  no  importance,  since  there 
was  nothing  to  prevent  cargoes  lauded  from  being  immediately 
resbipped  aud  distributed  into  smaller  vessels;  and  the  authorities 
were  not  at  Nassau,  any  nioie  than  at  Liverpool,  authorized  to  prevent 
the  exportation  or  transit  of  articles  contraband  of  war. 

That  cargoes  were,  in  fact,  frequently  transshipped,  either  with  or 
without  an  intermediate  landing,  Her  31  tijesty's  government  has  no  doubt, 
though  the  statements  made  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States  are  in 
luaiiy  instances  not  borne  out,  when  couq)ared  with  the  documents  pro- 
duced iu  proof  of  them.'^    The  Government  of  the  United  States  has, 

'Appendix  to  liritisli  Case,  vol.  v,  p.  ;{(). 

*ToiiYoid  tbis  risk,  it  is  wiid,  (p.  2'i:'>,)  "it  was  resolved  to  send  the  purchases  which 
iiiiglit  be  liiade  iu  England  to  Nassau  in  lUitish  bottoms,  and  there  transship  them 
iuto  steamers  of  light  draught  and  great  speed,  to  be  constructed  for  the  purpose. 
*  •  *  The  first  offer  from  Riclunoml  tliat  is  known  to  have  been  giveu  for  such  a 
shipment  is  dated  the  22d  of  July,  18(31.'" 

Tlie  passages  referred  to  .'is  authorities  do  not  show  any  snch  system.  The  letter 
from  Walker  to  Huse  &  Anderson  of  .July  5i'i,  18lil,  suggests  that  a  number  of  small 
vessels  should  he  secured  under  British  colors  and  with  British  clearance,  laden  with 
arms  and  convoyed  by  the  arnied  vessel  MacRae,  which  had  been  placed  by  the  secre- 
tary of  the  navy  at  the  disposal  of  the  war  deitartment  and  was  to  be  sent  to  England. 
for  the  purpose.  The  vessels  might  make  the  port  of  Nassau  or  some  other  port 
eiiualiy  favorably  situated,  whence  they  might  clear  with  probable  safety  for  the  coast 
of  Honduras  or  of  Yucatan,  and  enter  upon  the  coast  either  of  Florida  or  Louisiana. 
Nothing  is  said  of  traussbipment  at  Nassau.  The  Gladiator,  which  was  the  first  ves- 
sel that  arrived  at  Nassau  with  contraband  of  war  on  board  for  the  Confederate  States, 
(December  9,  1861,)  had  originally  orders  not  to  laud  her  cargo.  It  was  not  uutil  after 
sbe  arrived  at  Nassau  that  it  was  decided  to  distribute  it  into  smaller  vessels.  (See 
Appendix  to  Case  of  the  United  States,  vol.  vi.  p. .')(),  where  the  idea  of  transshipment 
is  spoken  as  a  last  resource,  and  Mr.  Benjamin's  order  to  Captain  Maffit,  p.  57,  aldoMr. 
Heyliger's  letter,  p.  58,  which  acknowledges  the  receipt  of  ordeiw  to  transship.) 

The  letter  from  Huse  to  Gorgas,  March  15,  I8&i,  ib.,  p.  69,  besides  being  lon^  subse- 
'I'lent  iu  date,  does  not  speak  of  auy  regularly  established  plan  for  transshipment, 
although  he  remarks  on  the  difficulty  of  uniting  in  one  vessel  the  qualities  necessary 
fur  crossing  the  ocean  and  for  runuing  the  blockade.  In  consequence  of  this,  Miyor 
Huge  is  "quite  at  a  1o.h8  w^hat  destination  to  give  to  the  Bahama."  The  next  shipment 
be  means  to  send  to  Havana. 

Huse  (at  Liverpool)  was  not  directed  to  send  the  cargoes  to  Nassau,  but  to  some  port 
in  Cuba,  "to  care  of  our  agent,  Mr.  Helm,  and  we  can  get  them  away  with  almost  en- 
tire certainty  by  breaking  bulk  there."    (Ibid.,  p.  68.) 

The  cargo  of  the  Economist  was  not  transshipped.    (Ibid.,  p.  71.) 

That  of  the  Soathwick  was  only  transshipped  on  account  of  the  amount  of  demur- 
rage to  be  paid  under  her  charter,  while  she  was  waiting  for  an  oi>portuuity  to  run  the 
blockade.    (Ibid.,  p.  73.) 

As  to  the  existence  of  "private  ventures,"  it  seems  that  most  of  the  arms  and  sup- 
plies, mentioned  in  the  correspondence  in  vol.  vi,  were  contracted  for  by  the  confede- 
rate government,  but  it  by  no  means  appears,  nor  is  there  reason  to  believe,  that  all 


n^'  '■■ 


-  ■■  •   ) 


280 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


i^^  Sli  '■' ' 


however,  omitted  to  iiifortn  the  arbitrators  of  the  means  which  weip 
adopted  by  itself,  as  a  belligerent  power,  to  extinguish  the  tratlic  with 
the  South,  of  which  it  complains.  These  means  consisted  in  a  rigorous 
extension  of  the  belligerent  right  to  capture  neutral  vessels  on  the  high 
seas  for  the  conveyance  of  contraband  and  for  intended  breaches  oi 
blockade,  an  extension  previously  unknown  to  international  law.  Eefort' 
this  war,  it  had  been  commonly  assumed  that,  where  a  neutral  vessel 
was  bound  from  one  neutral  port  to  another,  a  prize-court  would  no* 
in<iuire  into  the  destination  of  the  cargo.  The  American  courts  iiitm 
duced  the  principle  that,  if  sutticient  evidence  could  be  discovered  (mid 
the  evidence  deemed  sufficient  was  often  very  slight)  of  an  intention 
that  the  cargo  should  ultimately  be  delivered  at  a  port  of  the  bellij^e 
rent,  the  cargo,  and  in  some  cases  the  shij)  also,  became  liable  to  Cdii- 
demnation.  Goods,  therefore,  on  the  voyage  between  a  British  port  ami 
Nassau  were  eqimlly  liable  to  capture  witii  goods  on  a  direct  voynj;!' 
from  Nassau  itself  or  from  Liveri)ool  to  a  southern  p,)rt,  if  the  [nizv- 
court  had  any  reasou  to  suppose  that  to  a  southern  port  they  were  in- 
tended ultimately  to  go,  ;fnd  not  to  the  Nassau  market  for  bonc-Jidc  s;ile 
there.  And  the  shii)  sliared  the  fate  of  the  cargo,  unless  there  wciv 
reason  to  believe  that  the  owners  were  ignorant  of  the  ulterior  de.sti;i;i- 
tion  of  the  latter,  and  had  not  hired  their  vessel  with  a  view  to  it. 

These  decisions,  to  Avhich  no  opposition  was  ottered  on  tlie  pan 
[GOJ       *of  Her  ]\Iajesty"s  government,  destroyed  the  advantage  wliirli 

the  proximity  of  a  neutral  port  otters  to  a  blockade-runner,  in 
diminishing  his  risk  of  capture  by  diminishing  the  length  of  his  voyafji'. 
The  only  advantage  which  remained  was  that  of  transferring  the  oar 
goes,  whether  by  means  of  a  sale  in  the  market  or  otherwise,  to  snialki' 
vessels  of  lighter  draught  and  greater  s[)eed,  which  could  make  tlieii 
way  into  the  blockaded  ports,  not,  however,  as  it  appears,  by  nieansot 
the  inland  waters  along  the  shore,  (which  were  chietiy  used  duriiij,Mlic 
first  year  of  the  war,)  but  by  running  past  the  blockading-vessel.s.  In 
truth,  when  the  blockade  of  these  ports  became  really  ettecti\e,  tin' 
value  of  a  ueuti^il  port  at  the  distance  of  a  two  days'  voyage  was  lost 
to  the  blockade-runner;  it  was  valuable  to  him  only  as  long  as  they 
were  not  eftectually  blockaded.  To  assist  the  blockade,  however,  was 
not  the  dutv  of  the  neutral  government. 


FALSE  IMrORTANCE  ASCRIBED  TO  THE  IMIOCXAMATION  OF  NEUTKALITY. 


In  the  Case  of  the  United  States  some  special  importance  appears  to 
F„ue  .mporiau...  ^c  ascribcd  to  thc  fact  that  the  transport  of  contraband  of 
r«maircn''L'i''"»''J'';  war  and  breaches  of  blockade  had  been  denounced  as  un- 
utti.i,.  lawful  in   that  proclamation  of  neutrality  to  which  the 

American  Government  takes  so  much  exception.    It  can  scarcely  be 
necessary  to  expose  so  transparent  an  error.    The  proclamation  of  neu- 


the  vessels  loaded  with  them  were  chartered  hy  confederate  agenta.  Isaac  Campbell 
&  Co.  contracted  to  deliver  the  arms  sent  by  the  Columbia  and  Sylph  to  the  Coufed- 
erate  States,  and  tried  to  get  ort'  their  bargain.  (Appendix  to  Case  of  the  United 
States,  vol,  vi,  p.  88.J  I'art  of  the  Herald  again  is  uientioued  as  reserved  for  private 
cargo,  p.  95. 

The  information  possessed  by  tlie  United  States  Government,  and  communicated  to 
Her  Majesty's  government  at  the  time,  is  given  in  vol.  i  of  the  Appendix  to  the  Caaeot 
the  United  States.  Mr.  Adams  in  December,  1862,  communicated  a  letter  from  Mr. 
Morse,  United  States  consul  iu  London,  giving  an  account  of  the  system  pursued.  He 
saya  that  during  the  earlier  part  of  the  war,  the  trade  was  carried  on  by  agents,  but 
at  that  time  by  British  merchants  on  their  own  account,  iu  steamers  chartered  by  tueui 
or  freighted  by  private  speculators.'    (Vol.  i  p.  731.) 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


281 


w  T'w^^fimi 


t- 


i.  :■  f  \ 


trality  did  not  create,  nor  purport  to  create,  any  new  prohibitions.  In 
Euglaud  tlio  sovereiftu  cannot,  by  proclamation,  either  enact  laws  or 
abrogate  them ;  all  that  he  can  do  is  to  make  public  the  provisions  of 
existing  laws,  and  enforce  them  in  such  a  manner  as  may  be  necessary. 
The  efl'ect  of  this  proclamation  was  solely  to  warn  British  subjects  that 
they  would  incur,  by  doing  certain  things,  i)eualties  imposed  by  the 
law  of  nations,  against  which  their  government?  would  not  protect  them, 
iiiul,  by  doing  certain  other  things,  penalties  imposed  by  the  municipal 
liiw  of  (heat  liritain,  which  the  government  would  enforce  ag.ainst 
thi  m.  But  Her  Majesty  neither  did  nor  constitutionally  could  under- 
tai  e,  by  issuing  it,  any  international  obligations  toward  either  belliger- 
ent beyond  such  as  are  common  to  all  neutral  powers.  It  has  been  the 
practice  in  the  United  States  to  issue  proclaniations,  different,  perhaps, 
ill  phraseology,  but  in  substance  the  same.  In  these,  obedience  to  the 
law  of  nations  is  ''enjoined;*'  the  carriage  of  contraband  and  breaches 
ot  blockade  are  denounced  as  "  misconduct,"  and  warning  is  given  that 
persons  "  so  misconducting  themselves"  will  doit  at  their  peril.  But 
the  American  Government  does  not  appear  to  have  understood  that  by 
these  warnings  it  bound  itself  to  prohibit  or  even  to  discountenance  the 
acts  thus  denounced,  or  to  interpret  with  any  peculiar  strictness  its  own 
neutral  duties  under  the  law  of  nations.' 

KNOWLEDGE   OF  FACTS  IMPUTED   TO   THE   IJKITISII   GOVERNMENT. 


It  is  not  material  to  pursue  the  question  how  far  either  the  transac- 
tioDS  of  the  confederate  government  and  its  agents,  or  those 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  and  its  agents,  in  inuMXTuoThe  uT 
relation  to  the  purchase  and  transportation  of  arms  and  '"''»"'""""="' 
niuiiitious  of  war,  could  have  been  known,  by  iufpiiry,  to  the  govern- 
ment of  Great  Britain.  Had  they  been  known  to  it,  no  obligation  to 
prevent  them  would  have  arisen ;  no  obligation,  therefore,  arose  to  pros- 
ecute inquiries  respecting*  them.  It  is  said^  that  the  appointment  of 
the  confederate  agents,  their  acts,  and  the  powers  intrusted  to  them, 
were  open  and  notorious,  and  that,  '*  if  there  was  any  pretense  of  con- 
cealment at  the  outset,  it  was  soon  abandoned."  But  it  ai)pears  from 
the  very  documents 'relied  on,  that  these  agents  took  the  greatest  pains 
to  keep  all  the  details  of  their  proceedings  secret.^  "  The  United  States 
raiiiisters  to  England,  France,  and  Belgium,"  wrote  one  of  them  in  July, 
18G1,  "  have  been  very  .active  in  their  endeavor  to  discover  what  the 
agents  of  the  confederacy  are  effecting.  They  have  agents  employed 
for  no  other  purpose,  and  it  is  of  the  highest  importance  that  these 
should  be  kept  in  ignorance  of  all  the  acts  of  any  agent  of  the  confed- 
eracy. Any  person  that  has  ever  become  acquainted  with  Europe  from 
I  prsonal  experience  knows  how  difficult  it  is  for  a  stranger  to  keep  his 
i  actions  secret  when  spies  are  on  his  path."  And,  in  March,  1862,  the 
same  agent  writes,*  "  I  beg  to  suggest  to  the  department  the  importance 
of  everything  relating  to  these  shipments  being  kept  in  secret,"  adding, 
I  as  before,  that  his  "  steps  are  narrowly  watched  by  the  agents  of  the 
I'aited   States."     Her   Majesty's    government   did   not   resort,  and 

'  See  P^f^3ident  Washington's  proclamation  in  1793,  (Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol- 
I T.  p.  237,)  and  Mr.  Jefferson's  subsequent  letter,  referred  to  above,  p.  49,  and  President 
Grant's  proclamation,  issued  at  the  commencement  of  the  late  war  between  France  and 
I  Germany.    (Appendix  to  Case  of  United  States,  vol.  vii,  p.  43.) 

'Case  of  the  United  States,  p.  221 

'Appendix  to  Case  of  the  United  States,  vol.  vi,  p.  34. 

'Ibid.,  p.  70. 


:J|:-    \-" 


282 
{61] 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


it  certainly  was  not  bound  to  resort,  to  the  *moan8  which  are 
here  stated  (whether  truly  or  not)  to  have  been  employed  bv 
ministers  of  the  United  States ;  such  knowledge  as  could  be  deriveij 
from  secret  information  or  intercepted  letters  it  did  not  possess;  ami, 
in  the  unauthenticated  statements  which  Mr.  Adams,  withholding  the 
names  of  his  informants,  furnished  from  time  to  time  to  Earl  HiisfKll 
it  had  no  adequate  ground  for  inquiry  or  action. 

It  may,  however,  be  convenient,  since  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  has  charged  Earl  Itussell  with  having  neglected  to  make  inquiry, 
and  contented  himself  with  announcing  a  "  condition  of  affairs  at  NaV- 
sau"  which  was  "  imaginary,"'  to  state  what  was  actually  done  by  Earl 
llussell  upon  the  receipt  of  Mr.  Adams's  representation,  what  has  been 
previously  done,  and  what  were  the  facts  existing  at  the  time. 

The  iirst  dispatches  received  by  the  government  from  the  colony  re 
lating  to  vessels  under  the  confederate  flag,  or  engaged  in  trade  with 
the  Confederate  States,  were  dated  the  21st  of  June  and  the  8tL  of 
August,  1801,  and  forwarded  representations  which  the  administrator 
of  the  Bahamas  had  received  from  the  United  States  consulate  at  Nas 
sau,  respecting  the  arrival  at  that  port  of  merchant- vessels  under  the 
confederate  Hag,  and  the  refusal  of  the  masters  to  deposit  their  papers 
at  the  consulate.  To  these  the  administrator  had  replied  that  the  tacts 
alleged  did  not  justify  any  interference  wMth  the  vessels.  A  dispatch 
was  also  received  from  the  governor  of  Uarbados,  reporting  the  preteii 
sions  which  had  been  advanced  on  the  same  subject  by  the  United 
States  consul  there,  and  the  course  of  conduct  which  the  governor 
meant  to  pursue.  These  dispatches  were  referred  to  the  law-otiicers  of 
the  Crown,  who  reported  that  the  governor  had,  in  their  opinion,  taken 
a  correct  view  of  his  position  and  duty,  and  might  be  instructed  that  no 
foreign  consul  had  any  jurisdiction  or  power  to  seize  any  vessel  (under 
whatever  tiag)  within  British  territorial  waters.  With  respect  to  sup 
plies,  even  of  articles  clearly  contraband  of  war,  (such  as  arms  or  ammii 
nition,)  to  the  vessels  of  either  party,  the  colonial  authorities,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  law-officers,  could  not  interfere,  unless  anything  should 
be  done  in  violation  of  the  foreign-enlistment  act ;  and,  as  regards  the 
supply  of  articlv^s  ancipitis  usm,  (such,  for  instance,  as  coal,)  there  was 
no  ground  for  auy  interference  whatever.  Instructions  were  sent  in 
this  sense  to  the  governors  of  the  British  West  Indian  colonies  on  the 
15th  of  November,  1801.-' 

On  the  1st  October,  1861,  Mr.  Adams  addressed  a  note  to  Lord  John 
Kussell,  forwarding  a  copy  of  an  intercepted  letter  from  a  Mr.  P.  I3ald 
win,  living  at  Richmond,  Virginia,'  "in  the  service  of  the  insurgent^ 
addressed  to  Mr.  Adderly,  of  Nassau,  from  which  he  said  that  it  ap 
peared  that  Nassau  had  beeu  made  to  some  extent  an  entrepot  for  the 
transmission  of  articles  contraband  of  war  from  Great  Britain  to  the 
ports  held  by  the  insurgents.  It  would  be  a  great  source  of  satisfaction 
to  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  Mr.  Adams  said,  to  learn  that 
Her  Majesty's  government  felt  itself  clothed  with  the  necessary  power 
to  prevent  the  exportation  of  such  contraband  for  the  colonies  for  the 
use  of  the  insurgents,  and  that  it  would  furnish  the  necessary  instruc 
tious  to  the  local  authorities  to  attain  that  end.  Mr.  Baldwin's  letter 
stated  that  the  secretary  to  the  navy  of  the  Confederate  States  had  or 
dered  from  England,  to  be  shipped  to  Nassau,  a  quantity  of  arms  and 
powder.    Mr.  Baldwin  had  recommended  that  they  should  be  consigned 

'  Case  of  the  United  States,  pp.  232,  234. 

'^  See  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  ii,  p.  89. 

*  Appendix  to  Case  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i,  p.  520. 


i"M  Y^ 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


283 


to  Mr.  Adderlj',  asked  him  to  take  good  care  of  thorn,  said  he  would  be 
with  liim  vsoon,  and  would  cxi)e(!t  his  aid  in  transshippiug  them.  A 
copy  of  this  commuuicatiou  was  sent  to  the  colonial  oftice  on  the  8th  of 
October,  with  a  rejiuest  that  inquiry  might  be  made,  and  Mr.  Adams 
was  so  informed. 

Tbe  reply  of  the  administrator  of  the  liahamas,  dated  the  20th  No- 
vember, 1801,  was  recei\  ed  at  the  colonial  office  on  the  31st  December, 
LSOl.  The  administrator  forwarded  a  letter  from  JNIr.  Adderly,  express- 
ing his  surprise  that  the  United  States  Government  should  have  coun- 
ti'uaiiccd  the  intercepting  of  his  letter,  and  stating  that  no  warlike 
stores  had  been  consigned  to  him  from  Great  Britain  for  transport  to 
the  Confederate  States  or  to  any  other  place.  With  this  was  inclosed 
;i  report  from  the  receivtir-general  at  Nassau,  to  the  etfect  that  no  war- 
like stores  had  been  received  at  that  port,  either  from  the  United  King- 
dom or  elsewhere,  neither  had  any  munitions  of  war  been  shipped  from 
Niissau  to  the  Confederate  States.  The  substance  of  this  information 
was  conveyed  to  Mr.  Adams  in  a  note  from  Lord  John  Russell  on  the  8th 
(ifJauuary,  1802.^  It  was  not,  as  stated  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States, 
"the  announcement  of  an  imaginary  condition  of  affairs;"  it  was  the 
simple  truth  at  the  time  when  the  dispatch  was  written.  The  lirst  ar- 
rival in  the  port  of  Nassau  of  a  vessel  suspecte«l  of  being  loaded  with 
arms  and  munitions  of  war  for  the  Confederate  States  was  on  the  9th  of 

December,  1801.  The  vessel  in  question  was  the  Ghuliator.^ 
jj2J  *it  was  well  known,  undoubtedly,  to  the  colonial  authorities  and 
to  Her  Majesty's  government  that,  during  a  considerable  part  of 
tlie  time  for  which  the  war  lasted,  much  traffic  was  carried  on  between 
England  and  the  islands  of  New  Providence  and  Bermuda,  and  from 
tbeuce  to  ports  of  the  Confederate  States ;  and  the  colonial  newspapers 
(luring  that  period  contained  a  multitude  of  advertisements  ottering  for 
public  sale  the  cargoes  of  the  vessels  arrived  or  expected  to  arrive  from 
various  English  ports,  from  Havre,  New  York,  and  other  places.  For- 
eign goods  of  all  kinds  being  shut  out  from  the  Confederate  States  by 
tlie  blockade  of  an  immense  sea-board,  it  was  inevitable  that  such  a 
commerce  should  spring  up,  and  should  be  busily  carried  on  by  specula- 
tors and  adventurers. 

It  was  known  also  that  some  i)art  of  this  trade  consisted  of  arms  and 
'munitions  of  war.  But  these  facts  did  not  call  for  incjuiry.  It  was  not 
the  duty  of  the  British  government  to  inquire  who  were  interested  in 
particular  cargoes,  or  by  whom  particular  vessels  were  owned  or  ch.  ^ 
tered.  A  vessel  owned,  or  chartered,  or  controlled,  wholly  or  in  part, 
by  a  belligerent  government,  and  employed  in  conveying  merchandise 
from  and  to  foreign  ports,  is  liable  to  capture  by  the  other  belligerent 
as  enemy's  property,  or  as  employed  in  the  enemy's  service,  but  she  is 
not  a  transport  in  the  ordinary  or  proper  sense  of  the  word,  even  though 
part  of  the  cargo  may  consist  of  articles  contraband  of  war.  To  repress 
the  trade,  so  far  as  it  was  not  a  honajide  trade  between  neutral  ports, 
carried  on  in  neutral  ships,  was  the  business,  not  of  Great  Britain,  but 
of  the  United  States;  and  they  did  repress  it  accordingly,  by  a  strict 
and  rigorous  exercise  of  the  belligerent  rights  of  blockade,  visit,  search, 
and  capture. 

In  truth,  however,  although  it  is  several  times  implied,  and  once  as- 
serted, that  the  British  government  had  been  repeatedly  informed,  and 
repeatedly  furnished  with  evidence,  that  some  of  these  vessels  were  the 

'Appendix  to  Case  of  the  Uuited  States,  vol.  vi,  p.  57  ;  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol. 
V.  p.  26. 
•Case  of  the  Uuited  States,  p.  226. 


m 


-41 
'1  «- 


^11 


-\:¥\ 


](:  [  ■'. 


284 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


property  of  the  confederate  government,  and  ought  lo  bo  reffiudcd  ih 
"  trausportH,"  no  representation  was  ever  made  on  this  point  till  tin 
month  of  January,  1804,  when  some  copies  of  h'tters  taken  from  a  i»riz, 
were  sent  by  Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams.  Nor  was  this  informatidn 
furnished  as  a  ground  for  legal  ju'oceedings.  Mr.  Seward  only  iiitiinatcil 
that,  with  the  knowledge  thus  acquired  by  this  (Joverninent,  "  the  pol 
icy  pursued  by  the  United  States  in  regard  to  assaults  of  the  blockade 
would  be  modified.'  It  supplied,  in«leed,  no  evidence  at  all,  excciif 
against  two  vessels  which  had  been  already  caf)tured.  In  fact,  it  wns 
not  known  then,  ami  it  appears  to  be  but  imperfectly  known  even  now, 
when  the  confidential  j)apers  and  docunuuits  of  the  confederate  sov^rii 
inent  have  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  (loverinnent  of  the  United  State:, 
what  vessels  the  coTifederate  authorities  had  control  over  or  interest  in 
at  different  times,  whether  as  owners,  charterers,  or  freighters,  and  Low 
far  their  control  or  interest  was  shared  by  ])rivate  speculators. 

The  Case  of  tiie  Unite*!  States  abounds  throughout  with  assertions tu 
the  elfect  that  Iler  Majesty's  government  must  or  ought  to  have  been 
aware  of  all,  and  more  than  all,  that  became  known  during  the  later 
]»eriod  of  the  war,  or  is  known  now.  What  might  possibly  have  been 
discovered  by  an  incesssant  an<l  indiscrin)inatc  use  of  every  means  In 
which  secret  information  may  be  obtained,  Iler  Majesty's  governmen; 
cannot  say ;  but  a  slight  experience  of  administration,  a  very  slender 
acquaintance  with, judicial  records,  is  sufficient  to  convince  any  one  tliat, 
in  matters  of  this  nature,  secrecy  or  disguise,  where  there  is  any  motive 
for  securing  it,  is  not  difficult  of  attainment;  and  that  a  lurkiii},' ami 
undisclosed  interest  in  a  ship,  a  cargo,  a  contract,  a  trading-speculation, 
is  a  thing  easy  to  concceal,  and  hard  to  detect.  Such  experience  taii 
hardly  be  quite  unknown  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

During  the  whole  period  of  the  civil  war  the  sea  was  open  to  the 
United  States,  and  they  had  access,  in  common  with  other  nations  ar 
peace  with  (ireat  Britain,  to  the  workshops,  markets,  and  sea-ports  of 
this  country.  What  military  sui)i)lies  they  purchased  here,  how  they 
paid  for  them,  in  what  vessels  and  in  wh:it  manner  they  transported 
them  to  America,  were  matters  into  which  Iler  JNIajesty's  governnieut 
never  deemed  itself  bound  to  make  inquisition.  The  complaint  they 
make  against  Great  Britain  is  really  this,  that  the  liberty  allowed  to 
them  was  allowed  equally  to  the  Confederate  States.- 


.V  ■;.■■ 


I:  I- 


'Appendix  to  Case  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i,  pp.  741,  745. 

^'The  subjoined  extract  from  the  Now  York  Times  of  September  21,  1870,  shows  the 
courHe  pursued  during  the  recent  war  between  France  and  Germany  : 

"The  steamer  Lafayette,  belonging  to  the  Compagnie  Transatlantiqne,  sailed  from 
this  port  for  Havre  yesterday  afternoon,  having  on  board  a  very  large  amount  of  ord- 
nance and  ordnance  stores,  together  with  upward  of  250  French  and  Irish  recruits, 
fully  equipped  .and  prepared  to  volunteer  in  the  French  provisional  army  against  Prus- 
sia. Previous  to  the  departure  of  the  vessel,  Mr.  Johannes  Roesing,  consul  for  the 
North  Germiin  States  in  this  city,  visited  the  IJnited  States  district  attorney's  otHce  in 
Chambers  street,  and  demanded  the  seizure  of  the  Lafayette,  on  the  ground  that  she 
was  to  be  used  to  carry  a  military  expedition  against  a  country  at  peace  with  this  gov- 
ernment. It  was  found  that  there  did  not  exist  sutlicient  legal  cause  for  the  detention 
of  the  steamer,  and  the  German  consul  then  made  a  complaint  against  133  of  her  pas- 
sengers. He  charged  the  latter,  on  information  and  belief,  with  being  an  armed  and 
organized  company,  intended  for  warlike  purposes  against  the  Prussian  states,  in  vio- 
lation of  the  neutrality  laws.  His  affidavit  was  prepared  by  Hon,  A.  H.  Piirdy,  assist- 
ant district  attorney,  and  was  sworn  to  before  Commissioner  Betts.  The  complainant 
was  unable  to  furnish  the  names  of  the  cmigrds,  including  the  leaders,  and  the  war- 
rants for  their  arrest  were  accordingly  filled  out  with  fictitious  names. 

"After  the  German  detectives  announced  their  failure  to  recognize  any  of  the  expedi- 
tionary party,  Mr.  McKeuzie  took  a  passenger-list  and  used  it  in  expelling  from  the  I 


;   riw^  •  ; 


M 


COl'NTKR   CASK    OF    ORKAT    HRirAIN. 


2.S5 


(;3j  •!.  Kkhtiiictionm  on  coamncj  at  Xassat. 

2,  OHDKH   of  ol.ST   .lAMAUV,  l.S(i2,  IN    UKI.ATlON   TO   NAHSAU. 

Ilcr  Majestv's  o;ov(>nnnoiit  will  not  iidvort  in  detail  to  sonu'  iniiior 
iDiiiplaiiits  and  inaccuracies  which  occur  in  this  part  of  ,,„,„,.,,,,.„„ 
tii(>  Case  of  th((  United  ^States.  .  ..ii.....i  n. 

Two  coniphiints.  however,  remain  in  connection  witii  the  matters  ro- 
iVrml  to  in  the  rore^oin'i'  i»ay;es,  whiclj  are  treated  as  serious  by  the 
I'liiti'tl  States,  though  in  the  view  of  Her  Majesty's  <;overnnu  nt  thej 
li;iv(Miothin<;  to  do  witli  the  questions  refernMl  to  the  tribunal. 

One  of  these  is  fouinled  on  the  re.nuhition  enforced  by  the  cohuiial 
mitliorities  at  Nassau,  that  a  bellijjeront  ;;overtinuMit  shouhl  not  be 
Mitlered  to  store  coal  at  that  port  for  the  use  of  its  armed  ships  of  war ; 
the  other,  on  the  orders  subsequently  issued  by  iler  ]\rajesty's  jjovern- 
iiit'iit,  w  hereby  the  ships  of  war  and  i)rivateers  of  both  belligerents  were 
prohibited  from  entering  the  ports  or  waters  of  the  Bahama  Islands, 
unless  by  special  leave  of  the  governor,  or  under  stress  of  weather. 

The  circumstances  under  which  the  first  of  these  two  complaints  arose 
;ire  succinctly  stated  in  Karl  liusseirs  note  to  Mr.  Adams  of  the  L'.'llth 

V  Nscl  all  tlioso  wliostr  naiiu's  wi'it-  not  on  it.  I'rccisrly  fij;lity-tliifi)  I'ltMU'Iiinmi  lost 
thi'ir]>assii};i'  in  this  nifinnt'r.  Tlies^-  won-  all  boiin<l  for  tlie  Fri'iich  army.  'J'lirir  |)iis- 
.;i;'i<-fiekt'tM  w»u'o  to  Imvc  Ih'om  jjivcn  to  thcni  by  tlio  Frcncli  conunittft^  ot  tl  in  city, 
lilt  had  not  luicn  inirchaiseilat  tlio  tiiiiool"  tlit-ir  nxjtnlsion.  'llicy  wt'if  (|nit<'  in'lijjnant 
iniicctmnt  of  tlio  iiytfnt's  inanonvcr,  and  wore  loath  to  leavt-  the  pier,  trnstiii;;  that 
ilicy ini^lit  f;t't  on  hoard  at  th»>  lawt  inoniont.  Anionjj;  tin-  piisMnji<;rs  who  wik-  pnr- 
liiiwi'i'sof  tickt'ts,  and  who  roniainod  on  tho  Lafayt^ttc.wt'rc  the  h-aders  of  the  volnn- 
Viis.  and  over  yr)()  ('»uV/rc.x  an' (hfstini'd  for  their  native  land.  No  att  not  '.^as  made 
ly  the  dt'imty  nnirshaLs  to  interfere  with  arms  and  aininnnition  on  tie  steamer,  eon - 
sbtiiifjof  lv!(i,00()  rounds  and  several  thousand  Keniiuptou  riiles.  Mr.  Mi-Kenzie  was 
cxiitiiu'ly  dissatisfied  with  the  aetion  of  the  North  (Jernum  eonsul,  and  intimated  his 
iiitiMition  of  brinf^iiif?  the  matter  before  the  i)roper  anthorititis.  The  last  secMi  of  the 
Latliyctte  was  olf  the  ittery,  at  which  time  she  was  fast  steaniing  out  to  sea.  It  was 
iiiiitidently  reported  tliat  she  was  joined  in  tins  lower  bay  l>y  the  rrencli  corvette 
Litonche  Tooville.  Cai)taiu  Hassett,  with  four  guns  on  board  and  a  crew  of  ei^fhty  nujii. 
"Tho  Lafayette  was  to  have  sailed  on  Saturday  last — her  rc^^ular  day — but  was  then 
iltaini'd  by  an  order  from  the  French  minister  of  war  at  Paris,  who  desired  that  she 
>!iimiil  carry  out  certain  munitions  of  war  and  8Upi>lies,  intended,  it  is  alle<;ed,  for  the 
Fri'iieh  army.  Her  mails  were  kept  back  until  yesterday,  and  then  left  with  the  ves- 
>fl.  The  supplies,  A.C.,  consisted  of  l{omiujj;ton  i>reech-loaders,  to  the  number  of  (),0()() 
liM's— some  jiersons  say  more— several  million  rounds  of  ammunition,  a  larjje  number 
I  iivohcrs  and  other  small-arms,  and  a  considerable  (juautity  of  jirovisions.  .She 
MniinpiKed  takiufjiu  this  portion  of  her  cargo  on  Friday,  and  was  en<;ap;ed  day  and 
i)i;'lit  to  the  hour  of  her  departure,  and  even  after  she  sailed  a  lij^hter  arrixcd  with 
tasi'sof  arms  which  came  too  late  to  l>e  shipped. 

"It  is  stated  by  some  persons  on  the  wharf,  with  one  of  wlioin  our  r<  jxirter  converstid, 
iiiat  the  cases  have  the  marks  of  the  ordnance  oUici'r  at  Governor's  Island.  It  is  not 
Kiipi'oliable  that  the.se  arms  were  juirchased  of  the  United  States  (jlovernment,  as  Mr. 
Milvinzie,  the  ajjent  of  the  line,  inforiu(?d  our  reporter,  on  Monday,  that  this  (Jovern- 
liii'iit  were  fully  aware  of  the  purchase  and  proposed  shiiunent  of  these  arms,  and 
I'tiTi'il  no  objection." 

Tilt"  New  York  and  Havre  line  of  hieamers,  of  which  the  Lafayette  was  one.  held  at 
the  time  a  contract  with  the  French  govern mtui I  for  the  c.iniiigeof  the  mails.  In 
"ctoljer,  IST I),  a  telegram  was  received  at  New  York  from  M.  Cr«^inieux,  a  mend)er  of 
til  FieiH'h  provisional  governmcut,  ordering  that  the  steamers  of  this  line  should  lie 
'iiW  exclusively  for  fr<'ight  to  be  forwarded  on  account  of  the  government.  Under 
lis  order  the  iiackets  continued  to  carry  arms  and  munitions  of  war  in  large  <iuauti- 
tifn  liom  the  United  States  to  France.  It  appeaj-s,  further,  from  the  recelit  trial  at 
I'iiiis  of  >I.  Peace,  french  consul-general  at  New  Y'ork,  who  was  charged  with  the 
niunageinent  of  the  purchase  aTid  shipment  of  bese  arms,  tliat  four  vessels,  the  City  of 
llin'iiim  Ayres.  Concordia,  Riga,  and  An-adia,  a  re  chartered  and  freighted  with  arms, 
•vMi'ssrs,  UfMuington  iV  Sous,  for  the  Frencb  government,  and  two  others,  the  Erie 
mil  Ontario,  by  an  ag(^nt  of  the  French  eons..i-general  for  the  same  purpose,  thus  be- 
iiiraiiis; "  tnnispoi'ts"  in  the  sense  in  which  the  word  is  used  in  the  Case  of  the  United 


4» 


I' 

I  "  1 


286 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


March,  1862.^  It  will  be  observed  that  two  vessels  arrived  at  Xassan 
laden  with  coal  which  had  been  shipped  at  Philadelphia  by  order  of  the 
United  States  Navy  Department ;  that  the  United  States  consul  desired 
to  store  this  coal  for  the  use  of  ships  of  war  under  the  flag  of  his  gov- 
ernment resorting  to  the  colony ;  that  this  was  objected  toby  the 
[04  j  local  authorities,  and  that  the  objection  led  to  *remonstraiices  on 
the  part  of  the  consul  and  of  the  commander  of  the  United 
VKri„u«,o„,pi„int.  States  ship  Flambeau,  which  arrived  while  the  correspon ' 


oi'  the  I'liited  StiUfH 
HRHiiiHt  (ireat  B  r  i  I 
am. 


ti- 


euce  was  proceeding.  It  was  urged  by  the  latter  that  both 
the  United  States  ships  James  Adger  and  the  confederate 
ship  Nashville  had  been  suffered  to  coal  at  Southampton,  and  that  this 
ne-trirtion.  on  ^38  a  prcccdent  in  favor  of  granting  the  facilities  now  asked 
coMiing  at  Na.HHu.  jj^  Nassau.  It  was  pointed  out  in  reply  that  the  cases  were 
not  parallel.  Those  vessels  were  several  thousand  miles  distant  froci 
their  respective  homes,  and  to  them  consequently  coal  was  an  article  oi 
real  necessity,  whereas  the  Flambeau  was  within  a  very  short  distance 
of  the  ports  of  her  own  nation — Key  West,  for  instance — where  all  her 
necessities  could  readily  have  been  supplied.  In  obtaining  coal  at 
Nassau,  therefore,  there  could  be  no  other  object  than  that  of  eiiablicf; 
her  to  continue  what  was,  in  fact,  to  some  extent,  a  blockade  of  the 
port. 

The  commander  of  the  Flambeau  replied,-  ]»rotestiiig  against  such  a 
construction  being  placed  on  his  presence,  and  declaring  that  he  was 
strictly  eu  joined  to  respect  the  rights  of  neutr.ils. 

It  appears,  however,  from  a  letter  addressed  by  the  governor  to  the 
British  commodore  at  Havana,  dated  December  12,  18(51,  that  the 
Flambeau  constantly  kept  her  steam  up  ready  for  instant  movement. 
and  there  was  a  report  that  she  intended  to  cut  out  the  Gladiator,  or  t^ 

States.  No  objection  was,  however,  raised  to  their  sailinj;  by  the  United  States  (iov- 
erunient.  The  New  York  Times  of  the  30th  of  March,  1H7!,  gives  the  following  statt- 
ment  of  the  supplies  forwarded  by  these  and  other  vessels  : 

"  The  steamship  St.  Laurent  sailed  yesterday  with  her  last  cousijrnmeut  of  arniH  ami 
munitions  of  war  for  France.  She  carried  among  her  cargo  l,67(i  cases  of  eai;'tii(lf;ts, 
574  cases  of  harness,  1,444  cases  of  ritles,  205  cases  of  bayonets,  and  07  cases  of  piojei- 
tiles.  The  whole  cargo  was  valued  at  $708,l>.')5..^0.  This  makes  nineteen  carfjoen )( 
arms  sent  to  Havre  since  the  war  began,  the  previous  shipments  being  as  follows: 


Date. 


Steamers. 


September  3 Pereire 

September  20 Lafayette 

Oetol>er  4 Ville  de  Pari.s 

October  '20 St.  Laurent 

October  2i( Pereire 

November  2 '.  Avon 

November  7 Ontario 

November  15 Lafayette 

November  20 ,  Erie 

November  2S ,  Ville  de  Paris 

December  i;i Pereire 

January  2 1  ('oncordia 

January  4 1  Lafayette 

January  14 1  City  of  Buenos  Ayres. 

January  21 1  Ville  de  Paris ". 

February  (>  }  Washington 

February  13 !  Kiga 

March  1 I  Pereire 


Guns. 


Cartridges. 


Total. 


2,  l.'i.T 

1,'i.  t'40 
4.'),  023 
Iti,  023 

104,  870 
r,>>,  340 
72,  .'540 
rtO,  660 

120,  800 
11,760 
14, 100 

a,"),  iHo 

37,000 

8,240 

26,  100 


609,  531 


402,  .WO  , 
3,  !t.">5,  OOll 
!t,  424,  000  I 

io.2iii>,88o ; 

2, 164,  OCIU  ' 
11,.')00, 1100  I 
17,  78.'5,  502  ! 

9,  538,  736  I 
■6,  818, 12(1  , 
12,  39!»,  320  ; 

8, 104.  000  I 
l.j8,  751  I 

4,671,000 

1,  317,  000  I 

2,  88.7,  000  : 
2,  275,  820  ' 


3, 160,  000 


Value. 


fiO.  155 

4n,t.a 
'.nx  w 
.va,  yj 

707,  (K>J 

l,:()4,U'i 

9:10,3;^ 

1,7HM 

l,ll.i3,'iK 

tiWi,  * 

ti;H,0«l 

44K4(« 
747,451 
4ai,24»  I 
7:tl,3(« 


117,082,379  I    13,610,™ 


It  appears,  from  the  otlicial  report  of  the  Secretary  at  War,  that  the  sales  of  ord- 
nance stores  by  the  Government  of  the  Uuitdd  States  in  the  year  IS?©-^]  auiouiitd. 
in  the  aggregate,  to  $10,000,000. 

'  Appen<iix  to  Case  of  United  States,  vol.  i,  p.  34G. 

'  Appendix  to  Case  of  Uuiteti  States,  vol.  vi,  p.  51. 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    GREAT   BRITAIN. 


28T 


at  Xassaa 
order  of  the 
Qsul  desired 
of  his  gov- 
ed  to  by  the 
istrances  on 
the  United 
eorrespontl- 
jr  that  both 
confederate 
ad  that  this 
8  now  asked 
f3  cases  were 
listant  froEi 
an  article  oi 
3rt  distance 
here  all  her 
injj  coal  at 
of  enabllDf; 
.'kade  oftbe 

[■ainst  sudia 
:hat  ho  was 

ernor  to  tin- 
>1,  that  tht' 
t  nioveineiit. 


(Hat 

or,  ort«  1 

id  States  (iov-  1 

)llo  w 

\ng  statt- 

utof 

aritiH  aiid 

of  c 

iH'tridjies, 

!ases 

of  projt'^- 

tetui 

carijoeH  it 

,s  follows:        1 

,  "lUO 

Value. 

m  m 

,  OOll 

4n,t;u 

,  000  1 

oiri.K 

.tffO 

:iiii  >:> 

,  000 

7-4. ".: 

,1100  1 

707,  UW 

,  .V.'J 

l,7tJ4,l..':i 

,  7;«; 

9:iO,3;.4 

,  iu(i 

l,744,M 

,:m 

i,(i53,ai.' 

.000 

«»;.»■ 

,7M 

(ilH.OM 

,000 

754. 'J' J 

,000 

44f,4W 

,000 

747,451 

,82ti 

4'J!,24D 

7:il,3Wi 

,000 

■M.  ~i 

,  379 

13,1=10, 77a 

e  sa 

les  of  onl- 

-71 

iimouiitetl. 

jeize  that  vessel  immediately  after  leaving  the  port.'  The  consul  of 
the  United  States,  in  a  dispatch  to  his  Government  of  the  following  day,. 
stated  that  "  the  captain  of  the  Flambeau  is  watching  intently  the 
movements  of  these  rebel  steamers."''  The  consul  notices  that  "an 
English  man-of-war  has  arrived,  and  severai  mora  are  telegriiphed  as  in 
sight,"  and  he  does  not  doubt  that  every  protection  will  be  afforded  to 
tbe  Gladiator,  and  every  means  afforded  to  facilitate  her  escape. 
The  attorney-general  of  tbe  colony  advised  the  governor  that,  though 
it  might  be  in  accordance  with  the  regulations  issued  by  Her  Majesty's 
(fovernment  to  suffer  coal  to  be  supplied  to  an  armed  vessel  of  either 
belligerent,  putting  into  port  under  ordinary  circumstances,  and  desir- 
008  of  obtaining  a  supply  of  coal  in  the  ordinary  mode  by  purchase 
in  the  market,  such  was  not  the  case  of  the  Flambeau,  or  of  the  coal  in 
iiuestion.  He  therefore  advised  that  the  restrictions  placed  on  the  use 
(it  that  coal  should  be  continued,  and  that  reference  sliould  be  made  to 
ihehome  government  for  instructions. 

The.dispatches  reporting  these  facts  were  received  at  the  foreign  office 
from  the  admiralty  a«d  colonial  office  on  the  1.5th  and  16th  of  January, 
W2^  and  the  question  was  at  once  referred  to  the  law  officers  of  the 
Crown.  Their  opinion  was  that  the  governor  had  acted  properly  in  re- 
iiising  to  allow  the  i)ropo8ed  coal-depot  to  be  formed  at  Nassau.  The 
formation  or  permission  of  such  a  depot  for  a  i)urpose  so  directly  con- 
nected with  belligerent  operations  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  neu- 
trality of  Great  Britain.^ 
One  of  the  vessels  laden  with  coal  appears  to  have  been  sent  back 
lit  once  by  the  United  States  consul.  The  other,  the  Caleb  Stetson,  re- 
mained in  the  harbor  with  the  coal  on  board,  and  does  not  seem  to  have 
viirtered  any  injury  from  the  serious  leak  previously  reported  by  the 
onsnl,  as  rendering  necessary  the  transshipment  of  her  cargo  to  the 

Flambeau.* 

(j]!       *  Kepresentations  on  this  subject  were  made  by  Mr.  xvdams  to 

Earl  Russell  on  the  24th  of  February,  1802.    Lord  Russell  replied, 

in  the  25th  of  March,  explaining  the  governor's  proceedings,  and  Mr. 

[Aiiaras,  though  apparently  dissatisfied,  did  not  pursue  the  subject.^ 

The  attempts  of   the  United    States  to  form  coal-depots  for  their 

imi.sers  at  British  ports  were  not  confined  to  Nassau.    They  had  simul- 

[taneously  sent  vessels  laden  wit^h  coal  for  the  same  purpose  to  Bermuda, 

which  was  likely  to  prove  a  convenient  station,)  consigned  in  a  similar 

liiiauner  to  their  consul  there.    The  gos^ernor,  on  learning  that  the  con- 

[ilactof  the  authorities  at  Nassau  in  preventing  such  a  depot  had  been 

apiiroved,  informed  the  United  States  consul  that  it  had  been  decided 

jiiot  to  allow  the  formation  in  any  British  colony,  either  by  the  Govern- 

jment  of  the  United  States  or  by  that  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States, 

jofadepot  for  the  use  of  their  respective  vessels  of  war." 

The  orders  of  the  31st  of  January,  1802,  issued  shortly  after  the 
jwtnrrences  at  Nassau,  laid  down  general  rules  to  be  observed  order-  of  the  m-t 
pall  the  ports  of  the  United  Kingdom,  and  of  Her  Maj-  ia""u'n?i; >■».«'»'.."/' 
pty's  colonial  i)osses8ions,  as  to  the  admission  of  armed  ships  of  either 
jtieliigerent,  the  time  during  which  they  might  be  allowed  to  remain, 
pud  the  conditions  under  which  they  might  be  suffered  to  receive  coal 


'  Appendix  to  Britiah  Case,  vol.  v,  p.  27. 

*  Appendix  to  Case  of  United  States,  p.  47. 
•'Appendix  to  HritiHli  Case,  vol.  v,  p.  31. 

*  Appendix  to  (Jase  of  tbe  IJnited  States,  vol.  vi,  pp.  46,  53, 
♦Appendix  to  Case  of  United  States,  vol.  i,  p.  346. 

"  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  v,  p.  ti. 


3? 


Si 


i^\<  ■ 


m. 


{ 


288 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


and  other  supplies.  These  orders  at  the  s.ame  time  closed  the  ports  and 
waters  of  the  Bahama  Islands  to  the  ships  of  war  and  privateers  of 
both  belligerents.  They  will  be  referred  to,  as  regards  their  general 
operation,  in  a  later  part  of  this  Counter  Case;  and  ample  materials  will 
be  supplied  for  judging  whether  thej'  were  or  were  not  fairly  executed, 
and  whether  it  was  by  confederate  ships  or  by  ships  of  the  United 
States  that  the  hospitalities  of  British  ports  were  the  more  largely 
used. 

In  the  definition  of  neutral  duties  produced  in  the  earlier  portion  of 
the  Case  of  the  United  States,^  a  definition  which  purports  to  lay  down 
"principles"  and  "doctrines  of  international  law,"  and  to  be  "in  bar 
mony  with  the  views  of  the  best  publicists,"  it  is  afiftrmed  that  "  the  ports 
or  waters  of  the  neutral  are  not  to  be  made  the  base  of  naval  opera 
tions  by  a  belligerent."  "Ammunition  and  military  stores  for  cruisers 
cannot  be  obtained  there ;  coal  cannot  be  stored  there  for  successive 
supplies  to  the  same  vessel,  nor  can  it  be  furnished  or  obtained  in  such 
supplies."  It  might  have  been  reasonably  supposed,  therefore,  that  the 
course  pursued  by  the  authorities  at  Nassau,  in  the  case  of  the  Flam- 
beau and  her  coal-ships,  would  have  merited  the  approval  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States,  instead  of  being  denounced  as  a  violation 
of  neutrality.  The  restriction  in  question  is  not  indeed  commanded,  as 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  supposes  it  to  be,  by  any  rule  of 
international  law,  but  it  may  be  imposed  by  any  neutral  power  wliieli 
thinks  fit  to  do,  and  was,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  clearly 
proper  and  convenient. 

The  same  observation  applies  to  the  orders  of  the  31st  January,  18G2. 
It  is  undeniably  within  the  competence  of  a  neutral  government  to  close. 
if  it  think  fit,  all  its  ports,  or  any  selected  ports  within  its  dominions, 
to  belligerent  ships  of  war.  This  has  frequently  been  done.  Thus,  in 
1820,  during  the  war  between  Spain  and  the  Spanish-American  Kepub 
lies,  an  act  of  Congress  was  i>assed,  on  the  recommendation  of  the 
President,  by  which  it  was  enacted  that  no  foreign  armed  ship  should 
enter  any  other  harbor  than  Portland,  Boston,  New  London,  "^Tew  York, 
Philadelphia,  Norfolk,  Smithville,  Charleston,  or  Mobile,  un.ess  in  cm 
of  distress,  stress  of  weather,  or  pursuit  by  the  enemy.  This  act  was 
to  continwe  in  force  for  two  years.  In  determining  to  make  such  a  selec 
tion,  and  in  designating  particular  ports  for  the  purpose,  the  neutral 
government  has  to  consult  its  own  judgment  oidy.  But  where  any  par 
ticular  port  or  place  is,  from  geogr.aphicp.I  :,ituation  or  local  circuni 
stances,  liable  to  be  made  use  of  by  both  belligerents  or  either  as  a 
.station  or  base  for  naval  operations,  it  becomes  a  simple  measure  of 
ordinary  prudence  and  precaution. 

To  prevent  the  Bahama  Islands  from  being  used  for  this  purpose  was 
the  avowed  intention  both  of  the  restriction  on  coaling  erforced  at 
Nassau  and  of  the  subsequent  order.  These  islands  were  so  near 
to  the  American  coast  that  the  liberty  to  resort  to  them  could  not 
be  valuable  to  either  belligerent  for  any  other  purpose,  unless  ii  were 
to  the  belligerent  whose  own  harbors  were  under  blockade,  and  to 
whom,  therefore,  the  exclusion  must  necessarily  be  more  unfavoral)le 
than  to  the  other.  What,  then,  is  the  grievance  of  the  United 
States?  It  is,  that  the  United  States  cruisers  were  precluded  from 
using  the  Bahamas  for  belligerent  operations.  Nassau  was  frequently 
visited  by  blockade-runners,  and  was  within  a  moderate  distance  of 
Charleston  and  Savannah;  it  was,  therefore,   a  convenient  statiou 


TaKca  148, 1G7, 168. 169. 


COUNTER   CASE   OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


289 


and  port  of  call  for  cruisers  eini)loye(l  to  watch  and  capture  block- 
a«!erunuer.s.  Thus  it  is  explained  that  "further  stay  of  the 
[GCJ  United  States  *vessels  of  war  was  useless"  when  the  expe- 
dient was  adopted  of  sending  in  cargoes  in  light  and  speedy 
vessels.  Further  stay  was  useless,  because  tho  cruiser  waiting  in  port 
could  not  overtake  and  captur*'  these  light  and  speedy  vessels.  If  ships 
carrying  contraband  and  other'goods  to  blockaded  ports  in  the  Confed- 
erate States  were  suffered  to  repair  to  the  colony,  United  States  cruisers 
ougbt,  it  is  said,  to  have  been  suffered  to  repair  thither  likewise  for  the 
purpose  of  watching  for  and  making  prize  of  those  ships  and  their  car- 
goes. That  the  port  would  in  the  latter  case  have  been  used  as  a  sta- 
tion for  hostilities,  and  a  point  of  departure  for  naval  operations,  and 
that  it  was  not  so  used  in  the  former  case,  is  a  distinction  which  seems 
to  escape  the  notice  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

Tbe  rigorous  definition  of  the  duties  of  a  neutral  furnished  in  the 
third  part  of  the  Case  of  the  United  States  seems  to  be  forgotten  in  the 
fourth  part.  The  stringent  rules  by  which  the  abuse  of  neutral  ports 
hv belligerent  vessels  was  to  be  prevented  have  now  disappeared,  and 
the  measures  adopted  to  guard  against  that  abuse  are  reckoned  among 
the  cases  "  wherein  Great  Britain  failed  to  perform  her  duties  as  a, 
neutral." 

19  A— II 


ti     :   ,< 


.M! 


4'»S 


i!". 


: '  .;^ 


m 


[G7] 


PAIi 


iT 


V. 


P  A  II  r     V 

StUIlttT      iUHI 

ville. 


.Nii.-h- 


THE  SUMTER  AND  NASHVILLE. 


Ilaving  examined  the  miscellaneous  charges  preferred  against  Great 
Britain,  but  not  falling  within  the  limits  of  the  reference  to 
arbitration,  such  as  those  which  regard  the  traffic  in  ariii.> 
and  military  supplies,  Her  Majesty's  government  iiowaii 
proaches  that  part  of  the  Case  in  which  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  at  length  proceeds  to  specify  the  vessels  to  which  its  claims 
relate,  the  failures  of  duty  which  it  alleges  in  respect  of  them,  ami 
the  nature  of  the  claims  on  account  of  those  alleged  failures  of  duty. 
The  wide  conceptions  of  neutral  obligation  which  had  been  previoiisiy 
])resented  to  the  tribunal  here  assume  a  concrete  form,  and  arc  matk 
the  basis  of  actual  demands  upon  a  neutral  power ;  and  we  are  thus 
enabled  to  understand  what  those  conceptions  really  mean,  to  wLat 
lengths  the  (rovernment  of  the  United  States  is  prepared  (if  we  inav 
Judge  from  the  Case)  to  carry  them,  and  what  is  the  code  of  interna 
tional  duty  which  it  proposes  to  enforce  against  neutrals,  and  asks  the 
arbitrators  to  sanction. 

The  lirst  vessels  in  the  list  are  the  Sumter  and  Xashville.    Tlieic  i> 
no  material  dispute  as  to  the  facts  relating  to  these  two  shi[»s.    IJotliot 
them  were  fitted  out  and  armed  for  war  in  confederate  ports,  were  tlieiv 
commissioned  as  public  ships  by  the  president  of  the  Confederate  State>,  j 
and  thence  dispatched  to  cruise  under  that  conunission.    Up  to  tliat 
time  neither  of  them,  so  far  as  appears,  had  ever  been  in  a  British  jiort,  I 
Jn  respect,  therefore,  of  the  original  outfit  and  equipment  of  tliosesliiii.s| 
the  United  States  have  found  themselves  unable  to  suggest  any  I'aiili 
on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  or  to  bring  any  charge  against  her.    >'oi 
is  it  suggested  that  either  of  them  obtained  men,  arms, or  other  inilitaiy[ 
supplies,  or  augmented  or  renewed  in  any  manner  her  military  eijiiiii 
ment  within  British  ports  or  waters. 

THE  SU3ITJ:U. 


!*-■ 


The  history  of  the  Sumter  has  been  accurately  related  in  the  l}riti>ii 
Case.    It  will  have  been  observed  that  she  was  a  steani.sliip. 
""'"""""  purchased  in  a  confederate  port  about  or  soon  after  the  tiiiuj 

of  the  commencement  of  the  war,  by  the  navy  department  of  the  g<tv  I 
ernnient  of  the  Confederate  States;  that  she  l)ad  received  a  creM,  ainil 
was  being  actively  prepared  for  war  before  the  end  of  April,  ISOI,  audi 
upward  of  a  fortnight  before  the  date  of  Her  Majesty's  proclamation  oil 
neutrality ;  that  she  put  to  sea  as  a  commissioned  cruiser  of  the  Con  I 
federate  States  on  the  30th  June,  1861 ;  that  she  entered  in  succesmoii.l 
during  the  period  of  her  cruise,  the  Spanish  port  of  Cienfuogos,  tlitj 
Butch  port  of  Saint  Anne's,  Curacoti,  the  Venezuelan  port  of  riiertol 
Cabello,  the  British  port  of  Trinidad,  the  Dutch  port  of  rarainarilioj 


^'nirmm' 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN- 


291 


the  BraziliJin  port  of  San  Juan  de  Maraiihani,  the  French  ports  of  Port 
Hoyal  and  Saint  Pierre,  in  Martinique,  the  Spanish  port  of  Cadiz,  and 
the  British  port  of  Gibraltar.  In  each  of  those  ports  she  was  received 
as  a  commissioned  shij)  of  war.  At  Cienfuegos,  Cura<;oa,  Paramaribo, 
Trinidad,  Maranham,  and  Martinique,  she  was  suffered  to  renew  her 
stock  of  coal  and  provisions.  At  Curayoa  she  appears  to  have  staid 
st'veudays;  at  Paramaribo,  twelve;  atMaranhara,  nine;  at  Martinique, 
tourteeu ;  at  Cadiz,  thirteen.*  The  period  of  time  which  elapsed  be- 
tween the  dates  at  which  she  was  suffered  to  coal  at  various  ports 
appear  to  have  been  as  follows,  namely,  from  Cienfuegos  to  Curacoa, 
ten  (lays;  from  Curacoa  to  Trinidad,  six ;  from  Trinidad  to  l*aramaribo, 
foni'toen ;  from  Paramaribo  to  San  Juan  de  Maranham,  six ;  from  thence 
to  Martin  i<  I  ue,  fifty-five;  ^rom  Martinique  to  Cadiz,  forty-two.  As  to 
the  ([uantity  of  coal  which  she  took  on  board,  she  appears  to  have  ob- 
tained 100  tons  at  Cienfuegos,  120  tons  at  Curayoa,  80  at  Trinidad,  1-5 
at  Paramaribo,  and  100  at  Maranham.^  At  Martiniipie  she  received, "by 
the  written  permission  of  the  governor,  a  sufficient  stock  to  carry  her 
across  the  Atlantic.  At  Trinidad  she  had  applied  for  leave  to  pur- 
ii8]  chase  coal  from  the  govern*ment  stores,  but  this  request  was  re- 
fused, and  she  procured  it  from  private  merchants.  The  question, 
whether  she  was  properly  received  as  a  ship  of  war,  or  ought  to  have 
ken  treated  as  a  pirate,  was  raised  by  the  United  States  on  two  occa- 
sions before  she  touched  Trinidad,  (namely,  on  her  arrival  at  Cienfue- 
;'ns  and  Cura«;oa  respectively,)  and  twice  afterward,  namely,  on  her 
aiiival  at  Maraidiam  and  Martinique,  aud  in  every  case  fruitlessly. 
The  ri^bt  of  neutral  powers  to  admit  her  to  the  ordinary  hospitalities 
of  their  ports,  and  to  receive  her  as  a  ship  of  war  on  the  mere  declara- 
tion of  her  commander,  was  upheld  and  defended  in  long  and  carefully 
iciisonod  state  papers  by  the  governments  of  IJrazil  and  the  Nether- 
lands,'and  was  afterward  as  firmly  maintained  by  l-'rance. 

Of  the  prizes  taken  by  the  Sumter,  eleven  were  (;aptured  before  she 
put  ill  at  Trinidad ;  none  between  the  date  of  her  leaving  Trinidad  anfl 
that  of  her  arriving  at  Paramaribo,  where  she  took  in  fresh  supplies  of 
iiials  and  ])rovisions ;  two  between  Paramaribo  and  Puerto  Cabello ; 
three  after  leaving  Martinique.^ 

It  will  have  been  observed  that  at  (libraltar  tlu^  Sumter  was  disarmed 
;iii(l dismantled;  her  eiew  were  dismissed;  she  was  sold,  sent  to  Liver- 
imol,  and  never  afterward  use<l  for  war.  She  had  arrived  at  Gibraltar 
lit'fore  the  issue  of  the  orders  of  olst  January,  1802,  which  limited 
the  jteiiod  during  which  belligerent  vessels  of  war  were  to  be  suttered 
to  remain  in  British  i)orts.  Those  orders,  therefore,  could  not  with 
;  jiistiee  have  been  api>lied  to  her.     When  she  left  Gibraltar  she  left  it 

iiimned,  and  at  the  mercy  of  any  United  States  ship  which  might  fall 
ill  with  her. 

On  these  facts,  the  United  States  ask  the  arbitrators  to  find  and  certify 
tliiit  Great  Britain  "  failed  to  fulfill  the  duties  set  forth  in  the  three  rules 
in  Article  VI  of  the  treaty  of  Washington,  or  recognized  by  the  prin- 
littles  of  international  law  not  inconsistent  with  such  rules;"  and  they 
iislcthut,  in  considering  the  amount  to  be  awarded  to  the  United  States, 

Apijondix  to  BritiHli  Case,  vol.  vi,  pj).  l,()i>,  81, 10:5, 112,  IKi;  also  Scmine8's"Adv«n- 
liiris  Alloiit,"  pp.  139, 147, 154, 160,  Idl,  187, 197. 20G,  210, 216, 2:52, 2(50, 297, 304. 

•Vppeudix  to  Britieili  Case,  vol.  ii,  p.  5 ;  vol.  vi,  pp.  2, 69,  84  ;  Scninies's  "  Adventures 
Atloat,"  p.  145.  • 

' Tliese  di.spatcbc8  will  be  found  printed  in  full,  Appendix,  vol.  vi,  pp.  12, 29, 35. 75, 

'See  list  given  in  Appendix  to  Case  of  the  United  Slates,  vol.  iv,  p.  473. 


292 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


should  the  tribunal  exercise  the  power  to  award  a  gross  sum,  "tbe 
losses  of  individuals  in  the  destruction  of  their  vessels  and  cavyocsbv 
the  Sumter,  and  also  the  expenses  to  which  the  United  States  wen;  piit 
in  tlie  pursuit  of  that  vessel,  may  be  taken  into  account."' 

So  far  as  Her  Majesty's  government  is  able  to  understand  *h  ,  gronmls 
of  this  demand,  (setting  aside  the  accusation  of  "habit''  ..,,  iiisinci'ic 
neutrality"  against  Great  liritain,)  they  appear  to  be  as  follows: 

"1.  That  tlie  Sumter  was  furnished  with  an  excessive  supply  of  coal 
at  Trinidad,  which  supply  enabled  her  to  intlict  the  subsequent  injuiics 
she  did  on  the  commerce  of  the  United  States."^ 

We  have  here  an  application  of  the  novel  principle  asserted  in  tlic 
third  part  of  the  Case.  The  arbitrators  had  here  been  told  thut  "if.  in 
these  days,  when  steam  is  a  power,  an  excessive  supply  of  coal  is  imi 
into  the  bunkers"  of  a  belligerent  cruiser  in  a  neutral  port,  the  ncutinl 
government  will,  according  to  the  f^eneral  principles  of  international 
law,  "have  failed  iu  the  i)erfornuince  of  its  duty."  They  had  been  told 
thcit,  in  order  to  prevent  this,  the  neutral  government  is  bound  to  apply 
a  "  wakefulness  and  watchfulness  proportioned  to  the  exigencies  of  tlie 
case  and  the  magnitude  of  the  interests  involved."  The  local  anthoii- 
ties  must,  therefore,  estimate  with  precision  the  quantity  of  fuel  whkli 
will  probably  be  necessary,  taking  into  account  the  sailing  qualities  of 
the  vessel,  to  bring  her  to  her  nearest  port,  and  to  watch  with  tlie  iit 
most  jealousy  lest  she  should  procure  more.  For  any  failure  iu  tbis 
respect,  compensation  in  money  is  to  be  paid  to  the  other  belligerent  by 
the  neutral  nation.  The  arbitrators  are  asked  to  alUrm  by  their  awaril 
this  supposed  rule  of  international  law,  and,  in  a  case  where  a  cniisei. 
distant  more  than  1,000  miles  from  home,  has  purchased  no  more  than 
eighty  tons  of  coal  in  a  neutral  port,  to  charge  the  neutral  nation  with 
the  value  of  all  captures  made  by  the  cruiser,  and  the  cost  of  littiiit; 
out  and  keeping  at  sea  all  vessels  that  may  have  been  directed  to  look 
after  her. 

It  must  be  conceded  that  this  view  of  international  law  opens  a  snfti 
ciently  alarming  prospect  to  neutral  ])owers.  Happily)  it  is  as  com 
pletely  erroneous  in  i>riuciple  as  it  would  be  intolerably  unjust  ni  piac 
tice. 

International  law  sets  no  limit  to  the  <juantit3^  of  coal  which  maybe 
obtained  by  a  belligerent  cruiser  in  a  neutral  port.  There  is  no  sueli 
thing,  therefore,  as  an  "  excessive "'  supply.  Whatever  such  a  vessel 
may  require  for  repairing  or  renewing  her  sailing  or  steaming  po.ii. 
may  lawfully  be  furnished  to  her;  supplies  of  arms  or  munitions  of  war. 
repairs  or  alterations  of  her  structure  or  ecpiipment,  serving  to  augment 
her  warlike  force  and  directly  applicable  to  that  purpose,  slieiuay 
[GOj  not  lawfully  receive.  The  general  *eonsent  of  nations  has  drawn 
this  line,  and  it  draws  no  other.'  Even,  however,  if  there  hail| 
been  any  foundation  for  the  pretended  rule,  what  proof  have  the  I'nited . 
States  given  that  it  was  infringed  f  W^here  is  the  evidence  that  tlic 
supply  of  coal  to  the  Sumter  at  Trinidad  was  more  than  enongb  to  j 


'  Page  :«7. 

•'The  iiiHtructions  of  171)3  Ijuve  already  Ixm'Ii  it'leiriMl  to  : 
"  EquipmontH  in  the  ports  of  the  luited  States  of  vesstjls  of  war  in  the 
servieo  of  the  jrovernnient  of  any  of  tho  l»elli<j;er»nt  parties,  whieh,  if  doi 
vessels,  wouhl  bo  of  a  doubtful  nature,  as  being  applicable  eitlier  to  eoinine 
are  deemed  lawful." 

"  E<iuipnient8  of  vessels  in  the  ports  of  the  United  States,  whicli  are  of  a  ni 
adapted  to  war,  are  deemed  unlawful." 


iinmediali' 

ic  to  (itllH 

ice  iir «:". 


ituro  sillily 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    GRP:AT    BRITAIN'. 


293 


gross  sum,  "the 

8  and  cargoes  by 

I  States  won;  \m 

it."i 

tancl  *h  ,  jironiids 

L)it"  ..J  insiiimc 

x6  follows : 

ve  supply  of  coal 

bsequeiit  iiijuiios 

}  asserted  in  tlio 

I  tolil  th:it  "if.  ill 
»ly  of  coal  is  jnit 

port,  tbe  Di'utnil 
J  of  international 
ley  had  been  told 
is  bound  to  apply 
exigencies  of  tlie 
rhe  local  autbovi- 
tity  of  fuel  wliiili 
ailing  qualities  of 
atcli  with  tbe  lit 
ny  failure  in  tbis 
her  belligerent  by 
•in  by  their  award 
e  where  a  crnisei. 
ised  no  more  tliaii 
mtral  nation  with 
:he  cost  of  littiiif: 

II  directed  to  look 

law  opens  a  siit^i- 
)ily>  it  is  as  com- 
ly  unjust  in  piae- 

ioal  which  niny  be 

There  is  no  such 

ver  such  a  vessel 

steaming  pc-.ei, 

munitions  of  war. 

erving  to  augmoiit 

.  purpose,  slie  may 

lations  has  drawn  | 

ever,  if  there  bad 

)f  have  the  I'uited 

evidence  that  tlie 

e  than  enougb  M 


ivar  ill  tilt'  iiiinif(liiit''i 
lii(!li,  if  doiM'  to  "ili'i  I 
r  to  coiiiuK'ice  m  «;ii. 


arcof  anattlrcsl•llly 


earl•y  her  home  ?  There  is  none  whatever.  The  Sumter  procured  coal 
at  11  port  in  a  ]iritish  colony,  as  she  procure<l  it  before  and  afterward 
at  Sitanish,  Dutch,  Brazilian,  and  French  ports;  iu  fact,  the  (juantity 
she  received  at  Trinidad  seems  to  have  been  less  than  she  got  at  other 
jilaces;  and  it  is  clear  that  each  of  those  powers  is,  according]:  to  the 
view  of  the  United  States,  equally  liable,  as  regards  this  vessel,  to  the 
Hitii'o  claim  Avhi(!h  they  now  make  against  Great  JJritain.  If  any  ad- 
ditional fact  could  make  the  answer  of  Great  liritfiin  more  complete,  it 
woiiUl  he  the  circumstance  that,  in  that  i)art  of  the  Sumter's  cruise 
witbiu  which  the  coal  she  obtained  at  Trinidad  was  exhausted,  she 
made  not  a  single  capture.'  The  captures  for  which  compensation  is 
claimed  were  made  four  months  afterward,  with  the  aid  of  coal  procured, 
not  at  Trinidad,  but  at  ]\lartiiuque. 

1'.  The  remaining  argument  in  support  of  this  claim  is,  that  the  Sumter 
oiigbt  to  have  been  compelled  to  leave  Gibraltar,  (where,  according  to 
the  United  States  consul,  he  had  liimself  made  it  impossible  for  her  to 
procure  coal  for  navigation ;)  and  that  she  was  transferred  while  in  that 
port,  by  a  sale  which  is  alleged  to  have  been  ttctitious,  but  which  ap- 
pears from  an  intecepted  letter  produced  by  the  United  States  to  have 
heen  real.-'  Whether  it  was  fictitious  or  not,  was  a  question  into  which 
it  was  not  the  duty  of  the  British  government  to  inquire,  nor  was  it  a 
matter  of  much  importance  to  the  United  States.  If  the  sale  was  real, 
the  confederate  government  parted  with  the  ship  and  got  the  mono 
if  it  was  mereb'  nominal,  they  got  no  money  but  retained  the  right  to 
the  ship.  How  the  circumstance  that  she  lay  in  port,  disarmed  and 
without  a  crew,  from  January,  18G2,  to  February,  18G3,  or  the  sale  of 
her  in  December,  18G2,  to  a  real  or  nominal  purchaser,  could  have  ena- 
bled her  to  make  prizes  in  the  year  1801,  is  not  explained  to  the  arbitra- 
tors. All  her  captures  having  been  previously  made,  the  United  States 
suffered  no  loss  in  consequence  of  anything  which  happened  after  she 
entered  the  port  of  Gibraltar.  Even  if  this  had  been  otherwise,  in 
what  respect  do  the  facts  alleged  by  the  United  States  involve  any 
failure  of  neutral  duty  I?  Orders  were  issued  by  Her  Majesty's  govern- 
ment, on  the  30th  of  January',  1802,  that,  if  any  ship  of  war  or  privateer 
iif  either  belligerent  should  after  the  time  when  the  orders  should  be 
lirst  notified  and  put  in  force  in  the  United  Kingdom  or  in  any  colony 
or  dependencj'  of  the  Crown,  enter  any  port,  roadstead,  or  waters  of  the 
United  Kingdom,  or  of  any  such  colony  or  dependency,  she  should  be 
lequinnl  to  tlepart  within  twenty-four  hours,  or,  if  in  need  of  supplies' 
or rei»aiis,  as  soon  as  possible  after  the  expiriition  of  that  period.  The 
Sumter  reached  Gibraltar  several  weeks  before  these  orders  had  been 
either  notified  or  issued.  The  orders  were  therefore  violated,  (it  seems 
to  be  argued,)  to  the  detriment  of  the  United  States,  by  suffering  her  to 
leiuain  in  \Hnt  even  when  disarmed  and  without  officers  or  a  crew. 
Her  ]\Iajest;^'s  government  is  nnable  to  follow  this  train  of  reasoning. 
It  cannot  be  admitted  that  this  government  was  under  any  obligation 
to  enforce  orders  different  from  those  which  it  had  made,  and  inflict  on 
a  vessel,  actually  in  a  British  port,  the  injustice  of  subjecting  her  to  the 
operation  of  an  extremely  stringent  rule,  of  which  she  could  have  had 
iionoticii  when  she  entered,  and  which,  if  enforced  against  her,  woidd 
have  exposed  her  t^  certain  capture  or  destruction. 

"The  sale,"  it  is  added,  "was  a  palpable  evasion."    "The  purchase  of 
v^hips  of  war  belonging  to  enemies  is  held  in  British  courts  to  be  in>  alid." 


m 


i 


m  it 


i] 


K> 


I  i 


■f  i 


1  ■ 


IcJ"  1'fJ'sP^     * 


294 


TREATY    or    WASIlINfJTON. 


It  may  be  presmned  that  what  the  Governinoiit  of  the  United  States 
wishes  to  express  is,  tliat  a  puicliase  {Jiaffrante  hello)  of  a  l)t'lli<f('rciir 
ship  of  war  by  a  neutral,  in  a  neutral  port,  has  been  held  invalid.  This 
is  declared  to  be  a  "  simple  ])roposition.''  It  is  really  very  siini)lo,  iiiid 
yet  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States  it  seems  to  be  misunderstood,  so  iis 
to  introduee  a  eonfusion  as  to  the  relative  rights  of  belli{;ereut  iiml 
neutral. 

The  sale  of  a  belligerent  ship  of  war,  cooped  up  by  an  enemy  in  a 
neutral  port,  has  been  adjudged  in  a  prize  court  of  that  enemy  to  lie 

invalid  ;  that  is,  ineffectual  to  transfer  the  ownership  of  the  vcs 
[70]      sel  from  the  belligerent  to  a  neutral,  so  as  to  relieve  *her  liom 

the  risk  of  cai>ture.'  This  was  never  denied  by  Earl  ]{ussell,  lun 
is  it  questioned  by  ller  Majesty's  government.  lUit  the  transaction. 
though  invalid  as  against  the  enemy,  is  not  illegal ;  it  violates  no  law, 
and  calls  for  no  interference  on  the  part  of  the  neutral  goveriniient. 
Within  the  neutral  jurisdiction,  indeed,  it  is,  .f  not  prohibited  by  tlic 
local  law,  a  perfectly  valid  sale,  conveying  to  the  purchaser  a  titio  to 
the  ship,  which  could  be  displaced  onlj-  by  a  regular  sentence  of  con- 
demnation in  the  enemy's  country.  If,  after  the  sale  of  the  Sumter,  tlic 
British  government  had  protected  or  undertaken  to  protect  her  at  .soa. 
as  a  British  ship,  against  capture  by  the  United  States,  the  latter  Mould 
have  had  just  cause  of  complaint.  But  Earl  Itussell,  instead  of  iiiuloi- 
taking  to  do  this,  expressly  disclaimed,  in  Iiis  note  to  Mr.  Adams  of  the 
15th  January,  1802,  any  intention  of  doing  so.  "  Her  INIajesty's  naval 
and  military  ollicers  at  that  port  (Gibraltar)  have  received  instriu'tions 
not  to  give  any  protection  to  that  vessel  beyond  the  waters  of  Gibral- 
tar." He  gave  ^Ir.  Adams  all  that  Mr.  Adams  asked — certainly  all  that 
he  had  any  right  to  ask.-*  The  Sumter  quitted  Gibraltar  unarmed  and 
unprotected  from  capture.  She  was  exposed  to  capture  all  the  way  to 
Liverpool.  She  was  expose«l  to  it  when,  as  a  freight-carrying  vessel 
under  the  British  flag,  all  her  warlike  tittings  having  been  careftilly 
removed,  she  left  Liverpool  for  a  port  of  the  Confederate  Stares.  Shi- 
appears  to  have  escaped  it  only  through  the  fault  of  the  United  States 
cruisers  whicli  had  been  directed  to  take  possession  of  her;  and, because 
these  cruisers  failed  to  execute  their  onlers.  Great  Britain  is  now  called 
upon  to  ])ay  for  the  expenditure  incurred  in  respect  of  them,  as  well  as 
for  prizes  tlie  Sumter  had  previously  made  when  commissioned  as  a  M\\ 
of  war. 

It  may  here  be  observed  that,  when  the  United  States  minister  in 
London  was  arguing  that  the  sale  of  the  Sumter  ought  to  be  i)voliiliited 
in  Gibraltar,  the  United  States  minister  at  ^Madrid  had  admitted  that 
it  might  be  allowed  to  take  jdace  in  Cadiz.     In  a  conversation  witli  -M. 

Calderon  Collantes,  on  the  10th  of  January,  18(iL',  which  jNIr.  Perry  attei 

— . . — ™ . -J — — . 

'  This,  and  no  more,  was  decided  by  J.ord  Stowell,  in  the  case  of  the  Minerva.  IJoliiii- 
son's  Admiralty  KoixntH,  vi,  IWfi.  It  is  said  in  the  Case  of  the  United  .Statis  (p  :!" 
that,  "after  refleetinfr  npon  this  simple  proposition  tVn*  more  than  live  weeks,  Kail 
IJnssell  denied  it."  Earl  Itnssell  did  not  «leiiy  it ;  he  pointed  nnt  the  niisappreliensidii 
of  it  into  which  Mr.  Adams  had  fallen;  and  the  decision  that  the  Snmter  was  nut  to  lu' 
protected, when  ont  »)f  Hiitish  waters,  had  been  announced  and  conveyeil  to  the  ntlicti^ 
of  the  government  at  Gibraltar  more  than  three  months  before.  (See  liritisii  Case,  y- 
19.) 

-  Mr.  Adams  had  asked  "  the  assistance  of  ller  JIajesty's  governnuMit  to  prevent  fiii.\ 
risk  of  danKi>rc  to  the  I'nited  States  from  a  fraudulent  i.  nsaetiou  in  one  of  her  iini'ts; 
or,  in  default  of  it,  of  tleidining  to  recogni/e  the  validity  of  the  transfer,  .should  tliat 
vessel  subsefjuently  be  found  by  the  armed  ships  of  tin,'  United  States  sailing;  i"  ''"' 
high  seas.''     (British  (.'use,  p.  lU,) 


II I  f  i||.!(wi'L'ifi'ji|i|i;  I ' 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    (JREAT    BRITAIN. 


295 


ward  reported  to  hi.s  own  (rovertiineiit,  the  latter  saul,  speaking'  of  this 

\ossel : 

Iftlii'V  did  not  clittoHo  to  ;{o  out  to  sifii  aj^aiii,  us  they  had  oiitorcd,  they  luij^ht  stity 
iiiiili-r  the  jirotectioii  of  the  Spaiiish  llaj;  ;  and  indeed  their  sliip,  if  she  sJiuuUl  be  sohl 
,iiit  iif  tlitir  poHsessioM  into  h«n(^st  iiands,  or  leave  all  her  aiinanient  and  nmnitions  of 
war,  l.'iyin;; 'if'i'h'all  i»r(!tensions  to  luiiii^  a  war  vessel  or  a  privateer  of  the  so-called 
OmtVdfrate  States  or  of  anybody  else,  returning  really  and  honestly  to  her  former 
niiiditinn  of  a  merchant  steamer,  nii^ht  perhaps  be  liable  to  eai)ture  by  the  Navy  of 
;li,  IJiitcd  Slates,  but  she  mi;;ht  then  l»o  repaired  in  Cadiz  without  contravenin<j;  the 
riival  (li'i  reeof  .June  17.' 


:;•?■    i 


THE  NASHVILLE. 


Tlie  case  of  the  XasUville  must  fall  with  that  of  the  Sumter.  The 
supposed  failure  of  international  duty  which  is  alleged  against  Great 
llritain  in  respect  of  the  Nashville  is  merely  this:  that,  having  been 
iuhkhI  and  commissioned  as  a  ship  of  war  in  a  confederate  port,  she 
was,  on  three  different  occasions,  admitted  into  British  i)orts  and  suftered 
to  coal  there. 

In  the  Case  of  the  United  States  we  are  told  that "  she  took  on  board," 
iit  St.  George's,  Bermuda,  "  by  permission  of  the  governor,  GOO  tons 
of  coal,  and  this  act  was  approved  by  Her  Majesty's  principal  secretary 
of  state  for  the  colonies."  liy  the  "act"  is  probably  meant  the  sup- 
posed permission  of  the  governor.  Xo  act  appears  to  have  been  done 
Ity  the  governor,  and  no  permission  asked  or  granted ;  but  he  appears 
while  refusing  to  assist  the  commander  of  the  ship  to  obtain  coal  by 
purchase  from  the  government  stores)  to  have  made  no  objection  to  liis 
procuring  it  from  private  dealers,  and  to  have  placed  no  restriction  ou 
tlio  (luantity.  Ko  order  imposing  any  restriction  had  then  (October, 
1861)  been  issued  by  Uer  Majesty's  government,  nor  by  any  other 
il|  neutral  power;  *aud  no  restriction  was  or  is  im]iosed  by  any  rule 
of  international  law.  Xo  complaint  as  to  the  quantity  supplied 
Tas  made  at  the  time.  The  amount  actually  shipped  by  the  Xashville 
was  between  400  and  500  tons.- 

At  Southampton  theXashville  was  allowed  to  coal,  the  United  States 
ship  Tnscarora  being  allowed  to  receive  a  supply  at  the  same  time.  On 
her  return  to  Charleston,  she  again  touched  at  Bermudsi,  and  obtained, 
from  a  IJritish  merchantman  in  that  port,  coal  enough  to  assist  her  on  her 
ictiirn  vojage.  The  decision  that  depots  of  coal  should  not  be  formed 
in  the  island  for  the  use  of  the  cruisers  of  either  belligerent,  did  not  pro- 
liibit  this  act,  as  it  did  not  afterward  prevent  United  States  ships  of 
war  from  obtaining  at  liermuda,  on  two  or  three  occasions,  like  supplies 
wlien  necessary.  "  She  left,"  it  is  said,  "  under  the  escort  of  Her  Maj- 
Mty"s  steamer  Spiteful."  What  is  thus  described  as  an  "  escort  "  was  in 
tiiitli  only  a  necessary  measure  of  precaution  adopted  by  the  admiral  on 
tlie  station.  "As,  when  she  sailed,  there  were  several  vessels  in  sight, 
some  of  which  might  have  been  United  States,  I  thought  it  advisable," 
wrote  Admiral  IVIilne,  "  to  send  the  Spiteful  outside,  to  insure  respect 
'•eing  paid  to  our  territorial  limits."' 


'!^ee  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  vl,  p.  110. 

'See  Appendix  to  liritish  Case,  vol.  v,  p.  14. 

'Appendix  to  IJritish  Case,  vol.  ii,  p.  127;  vol.  v,  p.  2.  The  followin<j  are  the  in- 
structions which  were  given  by  Admiral  Milne  to  tlic  commander  of  the  Spiteful  on  tho 
"ccasidii : « 

"You  are  hereby  required  and  directed  to  put  to  sea  forthwith,  in  tho  sloop  under 
joiirconnnand,  and  proceed  outside  on  the  coast  of  these  islands,  with  a  view  of  pre- 
vtiitiiij;  the  confederate  steamer  Nashville,  now  about  to  leave  the  harbor  of  Saint 


ri 


p. 


¥■ 


w 


29G 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


Ilt'i- Msijostj's  fjoverniTient  has  deemed  it  respectful,  as  well  to  tlic 
United  States  as  to  the  arbitrators,  to  examine  the  claims  made  in  lo 
jjard  to  these  two  vessels,  and  the  reasons  which  have  been  produced  t( 
justify  them.  IJut  Great  Britain  may  surely,  with  some  Justice,  com 
plain  of  beinj;;  called  upon  to  meet,  before  a  tribunal  of  arbitration,  dc 
mands  as  to  which  the  sole  dillicidty  consists  in  treating  them  as  soiious, 
and  in  discovering  how  the  arguments  employed  can  be  imagined  to 
lend  I'.iem  any  support  whatever. 


fj!<'or;;(!'s,  from  intorfcriiiK  in  niiy  way  whatcvi'r  with  vcsHels  of  any  natitni  so  Inii;r;,s 
they  art'  within  thico  nantical  miles  of  the  shore  of  the  Iternnulas  and  their  iclIs.  As 
soon  as  the  Xashvilh)  is  out  of  si^ht,  you  will  n'turn  to  anchoia;?*'. 

"  Given  under  my  Iniiul,  on  hoard  the  Nile,  at  lionnuda,  iilUlT'ehruarv,  18f)'*. 

(Signed)  "ALKX.  MILXi;, 

"To  W.  C.  V.  Wji.sc.x,  j:s<(., 

"  Comma ndvr  o/Hpih/itl, 


*'  By  eommand  of  comnninder-in-ehief. 
(Signed) 


"S.  T.  srC'J'KK, 

"Pro  Seirclury." 


I  5 


i'J    h 


■••i# 


:2] 


PA  \l  T    V  1 


1 


■t  ; 


THK  FMIIMDA  AND  ALABAMA. 


Ill  tlu!  Case  of  Clroat  IJiitiiin,  tin*  facts  it-latiiij;-  to  tlu;  Florida,  Ala- 
bama, Georgia,  and  Slienaudoali,  were  stati'd  in  consider-     ,,,^.,  ,,.  n,,. 

able  detail.    The  buildin};-  of   each  of   these  vessels,  her  H' '"'•""' a'' > 

iirigiual  departnre  from  this  country,  and  the  circumstances  und(!r  which 
she  received  her  equipment,  and  was  armed,  manned,  and  titt<3d  out  for 
war,  were  presented  to  the  arbitrators  as  accurately  aiul  fully  as  Her 
Miijesty's  government  was  enabled  to  present  theiu  by  the  means  of  in- 
torinatioii  at  its  command ;  while  so  much  of  the  documentary  evidence, 
whether  favorable  to  (ireat  Britain  or  not,  as  aiipeared  material  to  a 
just  adjudication  on  the  questions  at  issue,  was  included  in  the  Case. 
The  facts  which  were  in  the  possession  of  the  British  government  at  tlu; 
time  when  the  events  respectively  took  place,  whether  brought  to  its 
knowledge  by  the  minister  of  the  United  Statt.5  or  ascertained  by  iude- 
poiideut  inqniry,  were,  in  this  recital,  kept  distinct  from  facts  which  did 
not  become  known  till  afterward.  The  general  course  of  conduct  pur- 
sued by  the  government,  in  respect  of  equipments  or  apprehended  equip- 
ments of  ships  of  war  within  its  jurisdiction,  was  at  the  same  time  ]daced 
before  the  tribuiifd,  and  attention  was  invited  to  those  cases  in  which  the 
means  of  prevention  employed  proved  ettectual,  as  well  as  to  those  in 
which  they  failed. 

The  method  of  statement  adopted  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States  is, 
in  some  respects,  different.  Circumstances  known  at  the  time,  and  many 
others  not  known  till  afterward,  are  there  arranged  without  distinction 
in  chiGuological  order,  so  as  to  form  a  consecutive  story,  while,  at  the 
same  time,  no  clear  line  is  drawn  between  facts  which  are  substantiated 
and  those  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  merely  thinks  or 
suspects  to  be  true.  Assertions  resting  only  on  the  belief  of  an  American 
consular  officer  in  a  foreign  port,  on  a  iei)ort  transmitted  by  him  that 
tliey  were  currently  believed  there,  or  on  information  said  to  have  been 
received  by  him  from  anonymous  persons,  are  freely  introduced  into  the 
narrative  as  if  they  were  ascertained  facts. 

ller  Majesty's  government  does  not  complain  of  this  mode  of  state- 
ment, which  has  doubtless  been  adopted  for  sufficient  reasons.  But  it 
manifestly  imposes  on  the  arbitrators  the  duty  of  distinguishing  for 
ibeniselves  between  allegations  which  are  [uoved  and  allegations  which 
are  not  proved,  and  between  facts  which  are  and  facts  which  are  not 
justly  to  be  taken  into  account  as  supporting  or  contributing  to  support 
aeharge  of  negligence  against  Great  Britain.  They  have  to  be  satisfied, 
not  only  that  acts  were  done  which  it  was  the  duty  of  this  government 
to  use  diligence  to  prevent,  but  thr*;  such  diligence  was  not  in  fact  ex- 
erted; and  of  this  thej'  have  to  be  satisffed,  not  by  assertion  onlj-,  but 
I'v  proof. 

It  has  been  observed  in  the  Case  of  Great  Britain  that,  in  countries 


.'^1 


;3.i 


I 


P.rl 


i|5j  ..: 


IV.  ' 


8'*  ;,  ' 


■i'i  ,. 


if? 


298 


TRKATY    or    WASHINGTON. 


wliero  (as  iu  (Jrcnt  IJritJiin)  tlio  oxccntivo  is  siibjoct  to  Ww  laws,  rorcij^n 
states  liiivii  u  lijjfht  to  expoi-t  tiuit  tlio  laws  slioiild  bo  such  as,  in  t?|,. 
oxorciso  of  onliiiiuy  foresiylit  iiiij^lit  reasonably  bo  ileomod  a(lot|uatt'|(n 
tlio  loprossioii  of  acts  \vlii»;h  tli(^  ji'ovoininoiit  is  undor  an  obligation  ((, 
I'opi'oss,  and,  fiirthor,  tliat  tlio  laws  should  bo  enforcod  and  tlu;  l(';;;i| 
powcii's  of  yovornniont  oxorcis(Ml,  so  far  as  nuiy  bo  nooossary  for  this  |mr 
l)oso.  J>iit  it  was  adilod  tliat,  wlioro  such  laws  exist,  foreijjn  states  uic 
not  entitled  to  re(|uire  tliat  tliu  e.xe(;utive  should  overstep  them  in  iiai 
ticular  eases,  in  or<ler  to  i>rovent  harm  to  foreijifu  states  or  their  eitizons. 
nor  that,  lor  this  i)nrpose,  it  shoidd  aet  against  the  persons  or  i)ro|)('it.v 
of  individuals,  unless  upon  evideiuio  which  would  justity  it  iu  so  .'lotiiij,' 
if  the  interests  to  be  i)rotected  were  its  own  or  those  of  its  own  citizens, 
The  ])rineiple  which  those  projjositions  convey  is  of  supremo  impoitancf 
to  all  nations  in  which  the  paramount  dominion  of  law  is  recojjnized,  tiic 
protection  which  it  secures  to  civil  and  political  liberty  valued,  antl  the 
executive  not  intrusted  with  large  and  arbitrary  powers.  On  no  otiier 
terms,  indeed,  coidd  such  states  undertake  to  subject  themselves  to  iniy 
international  obligations  whatever.  Nt)  constitutional  state  comIIi 
reasonably  bo  assumed  to  have  engage<l  to  break  through  or  set  Jisldc 

its  laws,  in  the  int(!rest  of  foreign  nations,  whenever  an  o(Tiisioii 
1 73 1      ndght  arise  for  which  the  laws  were  found  to  have  imperfectly*  pm 

vided  beforehand.  It  has  been  further  shown  that  the  law  df 
Clreat  Britain,  as  it  existed  at  the  time  when  those  occurrences  took 
place,  were  such  as,  in  the  exercise  of  ordinary  foresight,  might  reason 
aldy  be  deemed  ado(piato  for  enabling  the  government  to  dischar^^e  its 
obligations  as  a  neutral  power.  It  has  appeared,  also,  that  the  powers 
which  the  government  possessed,  to  prevent  fitting  out,  arming,  and 
ecpupping  within  its  jurisdiction  of  vessels  intended  for  the  naval  service 
of  the  Confederate  States,  or  the  departure,  with  that  intent,  of  vessels 
specially  adapted  within  its  jurisdiction  to  warlike  use,  were  dotined  and 
regulated  bylaw;  that  the  law  ])rovided  certain  modes  of  prevention, 
and  required,  before  authorizing  the  condemnation  of  a  suspected  vessel, 
that  the  facts  alleged  against  her  sliouhl  be  (capable  of  i>roof ;  and  that 
the  government  had  in  no  such  case  any  power  of  seizure  or  detention. 
except  with  a  view  to  a  subsequent  condemnation  in  due  course  of  law. 
and  on  the  ground  of  an  infringement  of  the  law  sutticient  to  warrant 
condemnation.  By  proof,  it  was  added,  in  a  J>ritish  court  of  law,  is  un 
derstood  the  production  of  evidence  sutlicient  to  create  in  the  mind  nt 
the  judge  or  jury  (as  the  case  may  be)  a  reasonable  and  deliberate  belict 
of  tlie  truth  of  a  fact  to  be  ])roved,  such  as  a  reasonable  person  wonld 
be  satisHed  to  act  upon  in  any  iinporJ  a!>t  concerns  of  his  own.  And  In 
evidence  is  understood  the  testimony,  on  )atli,  of  a  witness  or  witnesses. 
produced  iu  o])en  court,  and  subjec!;  to  cross-examination,  as  to  facts 
within  his  or  their  per.sonal  knowU dgc  Testimony  which  is  mere  lieai 
say,  as  to  the  existence  of  common  reports,  however  prevalent  and  how 
ever  generally  credited,  or  as  to  any  matter  not  within  the  knowled^'e 
of  the  witness,  is  not  admitted  in  an  English  court.'  Those  rules,  whicli 
in  England  have  been  deemed  expedient  for  securing  the  due  adniinis 
tration  of  justice,  m.ay  not  be  regarded  as  necessary  in  some  other  conn- 
tries.  But  there  was  clearly  nothing  in  them  which  could  be  supposed 
to  be  incon-sistent  with  the  dictates  of  natural  justice;  and,  this  bein;' 
so,  it  was  the  right  of  Great  Britain  to  adhere  to  and  apply  them  in  all 
cases  ari.sing  within  her  jurisdiction,  as  it  would  be  the  right  of  Italy, 


'  British  Caso,  j).  .'>!. 


cch;nti:h  cask  of  c.ukxt  luniAiN. 


2!I9 


^ 


t'      ■; 


nt  Switzt'i'liiiid,  of  Unizil,  or  of  tlio  Kiiitnl  Statos  to  apply  respectively 
ill  (•(trn^spondin;,' cases  their  own  rules  of  ])roce(liire  and  eviileiice. 

While,  therefore,  tho  ohliyation  to  use  due  diligence  in  order  t«»  pre- 
vent certain  acts  froni  bein;?  committed  witliin  the  Jurisdiction  of  the 
soverci}*!!  is  an  obli^^ation  wholly  independent  of  municipal  law,  it  is  at 
the  same  time  incontrovertibly  true  that,  in  deterininiii};-  the  (|uestion 
whether  due  dilijjence  has  been  used  in  a  ^iven  cas»*,  the  municipal  law 
(it  the  particular  country,  tho  modes  i)rovided  for  enforcinj''  it,  tin' 
powers  vested  in  the  executive,  the  established  rules  of  administrative 
ami  judicial  procedure  may  be,  and  commonly  are,  matters  which  it  is 
proper  and  nuiterial  to  take  into  account. 

Tlie  failures  of  duty  which  the  United  States  impute  to  (Ireat  lUitaiu, 
iiiroapcct  of  the  Florida,  Alabama,  (leorjjia,  and  Shenandoah,  consist 
partly  in  an  allefjed  want  of  due  diligence  in  preventing'  the  original 
('(|iiipnient  of  those  vessels  and  their  original  dei)arture  from  (Ireat 
iliitain,  and  partly  in  the  liosi)italitiea  afterward  artorded  to  them  in 
llritisli  i»orts,  where,  it  is  insisted,  they  ought  to  havi^  been  seized  and 
ilctaiiH'd. 

THE   FLOUIDA. 


The  history  of  the  Florida  divides  itsell'  into  three  parts,  the  lirst 
iiidiiif,' with  her  departure  from  (Ireat  liritain;  the  secoinl  n.n.ni,, 

witii  her  release  at  Nassau ;  the  third  including  her  subse-  '' 

ipieiit  e<iuipment,  her  arrive'  at  Mobile,  and  her  cruise  after  leaving 
Mobile. 

The  first  part  of  this  history,  as  told  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States, 
•i  as  follows :  •  The  Florida  was  built  to  the  order  of  lUillock,  an  agent 
it  the  confederate  government.  The  contract  for  building  her  was  inade 
with  one  manufacturing  firm  and  sub-let  to  another,  it  was  made  in 
tlieautnuju  of  1(S01,  and  was  completed  by  February,  18(iL*.  She  waited 
ii)r  the  arrival  of  Bullock  and  four  other  confederate  ollicers,  "  wiio 
were  to  take  commands  in  the  vessels  which  were  contracted  for  in 
Liverpool,"  and  sailed  soon  afterward,  consigned  to  Heyliger,  a  con- 
tcderate  agent  at  Nassau,  or  to  Adderly  &  Co.,  merchants,  resident 
there.  Her  arnmment  was  at  the  same  time  prei)ared  at  Liverpool,  sent 
ihenoo  to  Hartlepool,  and  shipped  on  board  a  steamer,  called  the  IJahama, 
liir  Nassau. 

"It  was  a  matter,''  the  tribunal  is  told,  "of  i)nblic  notoriety  that  this 
was  jioing  on.  All  the  facts  about  the  Florida,  and  about  the  hostile 
expedition  which  it  was  proposed  to  make  against  the  United  States, 
were  open  and  notorious  at  Liverpool."  The  inference  is,  that  all  the 
laets  which  are  stated  in  the  Case  were,  or  ought  to  have  been,  known 
Niiler  Majesty's  government;  that  the  government  knew,  or  ought  to 
liave  known,  of  the  contract  with  Bullock;  that  it  knew,  or  ought  to 
Inive  known,  of  the  arrangements  for  arming  the  ship,  since  these 
things  were  generally  known  in  the  place  where  the  events 
i^!  occurred.  *  Where  is  the  proof  of  these  assertions?  Where  is 
the  proof  that  even  the  American  consul  at  Liverpool,  whose 
activity  in  hunting  for  secret  information  appears  to  have  been  inde- 
'atijjable,  and  to  whom  every  one  resorted  who  had  information  to  dis- 
'lose,  knew  of  the  contract  with  Bullock,  or  of  the  dispatch,  cargo,  and 
'lestination  of  the  Bahama?  And  if  he  knew  them,  why  did  he  not 
cither  communicate  his  knowledge,  and  the  proofs  in  his  jmssession,  to 


t.„-i 


'Case  of  the  United  States,  pp.  '.V.i2  et  seq. 


;oo 


TREATY    or    WASHIN(iTO\. 


w 

mflR. 

i 

i 

''i 

f.  • 

'm 

J 

^iLl 

m.\i 


i"t 


3" 


the  ]Jiiti.sli  <i;ovt',riiin(Mit,  or  liimself  \i\y  an  infoniiatioii  on  oath  a<faiiist 
tlu'  ship  * 

It  is  dear  tliat  Mr.  Diulloy  hiinsolf  was  in  ij;noraiice  of  tlic  I'jicts 
which,  ill  the  Case  of  the  United  States,  are  asserted  to  have  been  oik-h 
and  notorious  to  all.  His  attention  Iiad  been  called  to  the  Florida,  then 
in  the  bnildcr's  yard,  as  early  as  November,  1801.  On  the  24tli  Jaim 
ary,  1802,  he  writes  tliat  "she  is  reported  for  the  Italian  governinpiit:" 
hut  tlio  fact  of  the  machinery  being  supplied  by  Fawcett  »S:  Preston. 
and  other  (iircuinstances,  make  him  "  suspicions,"  and  cause  him  to  bi- 
lieve  she  is  intended  for  the  South.'  On  the  4th  February  the  ciroum- 
stances  are  still  ".somewhat  suspicious."  "There  is  much  secrecy  ob 
served  about  her,  and  I  have  been  unable  to  get  anything  definite,  liiit 
my  impressions  are  strong  that  she  is  intended  for  the  southern  confed 
€racy.  I  have  communicated  my  impressions  and  all  the  facts  to  Mr. 
Adams,  our  minister  in  London."  At  that  moment  the  ship  was  taivinj: 
ill  her  coal ;  and  "  appearances  indicate,"  he  wrote,  "  that  she  will  leavt 
here  the  latter  part  of  this  week."^  He  makes,  however,  no  representa 
tiou  to  the  government,  nor  does  Mr.  Adams  make  any.  On  the  li'tli 
lie  writes  to  Mr.  Seward  that  overything  he  sees  and  hears  conflrnis  bim 
in  the  belief  that  the  vessel  is  intended  for  the  confederacy;  but  he  men 
tions  no  fact,  except  that  Miller  (the  builder)  had  said  that  Fawcett. 
Preston  &  Co.  gave  him  the  contract.  Still  no  representation  is  made, 
On  ihe  17th  he  has  "  obtained  information,  from  many  different  souroes." 
■which  "goes  to  show"  that  she  is  intended  for  the  Confederate  States. 
Nevertheless,  the  solitary  fact  mentioned  is  that  Fawcett,  Preston  tfc  Co, 
nre  said  to  be  the  owners,  with  the  addition  that  advances  are  said  to 
have  been  made  to  them  and  to  Miller  by  F'raser,  Trenholm  &  Co.'  At 
terward  he  tells  Mr.  Seward  that  he  has  "no  doubt,"  and  has  "  positive 
evidence,"  that  she  is  "for  the  South;"  and,  on  the  5th  March,  tliat tvu 
persons  in  the  employ  of  Fawcett,  Preston  &  Co.,  had  said  so.*  But, 
up  to  the  time  when  she  left  Liverpool,  his  correspondence  mentions  not 
a  single  circumstance  proving,  or  tending  to  prove,  for  what  purpose  she 
Avas  intended,  beyond  some  rumors  as  to  her  probable  movements, 
which  turned  out  to  be  erroneous.  With  the  "  notorious  fact"  that  sk 
had  been  ordered  by  Bullock  he  is  evidently  quite  unacquainted.'*  As 
to  the  liahama,  so  far  is  he  from  being  aware  of  the  "notorious  fact" 
that  she  was  about  to  take  out  the  Florida's  armament,  that  u])  to  the 
(Jth  JNIarch  he  is  making  fruitless  impiiries  about  that  vessel,  ami  can 
obtain  no  information  about  her,  or  any  vessel  of  that  name."  Several 
<lays  afterward  he  learns  that  she  is  loading  with  cannon  and  other  lun- 
nitions  of  war  at  Hartlepool,  and  "  ipill  either  run  the  blockade,  or  land 
her  cargo  at  JJermuda  or  Nassau,  and  hare  it  ferried  orer  in  smaller  res- 
,se/.v."'  He  believes  her,  in  short,  to  the  last,  to  be  merely  a  blockade- 
runner,  laden  with  articles  contraband  of  war,  and  has  no  idea  of  her 
having  any  connection  with  the  F'lorida. 

Here,  then,  we  have  Mr.  Dudley's  confidential  correspondence  with 
his  otticial  superior.     AVe  lind  him  quite  in  the  dark  as  to  tlie  main 


'  AppeiuUx  to  Case  of  the  United  States,  vol.  vi,  p.  ^14. 

-Ibid.,  J).  '21.'). 

Mbitl.,  p. 'il(i. 

^  Iltid.,  pp.  'i'iO,  221. 

'"•  iFr.  Howard  had,  however,  iiifoniu'd  Mr.  AdaiiiH,  in  AiiKUst,  1H61,  that  IJidldck  ^v;l^ 
saitl  to  bo  in  Europe,  and  to  have  contracted  for  ten  war  Mteaniers,  (vol.  vi,  p.  •!•' ' 
According  to  the  Case  of  the  I'nited  States,  IJnllock  was  in  the  Confederate  ^ftatisiiu'" 
'he  antnnin  of  1H<31  until  iniinediately  before  the  Florida  nailed,  (p.  '.VM.) 

"  Case  of  the  United  States,  vol.  vi,  p.  222. 

'  Ibul.,  p.  223.  : 


P   f  lip  ..ll^fljlff! 


COUNTER    CASP:    OF    GKP:AT    URITAIX. 


301 


tacts  which  are  relied  ou  in  the  case  of  the  United  States,  and  declared 
to  have  been  perfectly  oi»en  and  notorious  at  Liverpool,  but  laboriously 
picking"  up  S'^iraps  of  secret  information,  till  he  arrives  at  a  confident 
opiuiou,  respecting  the  grounds  of  which  he  is  silent.  But  it  may  here 
be  observed,  by  tlie  waj',  that  ^Ir.  Dudley,  though  he  appears  to  have 
been  an  intelligent  and  painstaking  otlicer,  was  often  contident  of  facts 
as  to  which  he  was  entirely  mistaken. 

AVe  now  perceive  what  is  the  value  of  the  assertion,  so  frequently 
ncciirring  in  the  case,  that  facts  alleged  therein  were  open  and  noto- 
rious, and,  therefore,  must  or  should  have  been  known  to  Her  Majesty's 
jTOveriunent.  In  truth,  these  open  and  notorious  facts  do  not  appear  to 
liave  been  discovered  till  long  afterward,  even  by  the  industrious  re- 
searches of  the  Go\ernment   a»id  subordinate  oflicers  of  the  LTnited 

States. 
'")]       *Let  us  now  recall  what  was  known  to  the  British  government. 
This  has  been  fully  and  accurately  stated  in  the  Case  of  (heat 
Britain.^ 

The  first  representation  made  to  Earl  Russell  was  received  on  the 
l!)th  February,  three  mouths  after  the  time  when  Mr.  Dudley's  attention 
was  first  directed  to  the  ship.  We  have  seen  that  it  conveyed  no  in- 
foruiation  whatever  ou  which  a  governnuMit  could  act.  Fawcett,  Pres- 
ton &  Co.,  who  gave  the  contract  to  the  actual  builder,  were  a  firm  ear- 
ning on  an  extensive  trade.  It  was  said  that  on  a  previous  occasion 
tiiey  had  been  concerned  in  a  shipment  of  arms  for  the  Confetlerate 
States,  and  it  was  further  stated  that  money  had  been  advanced  to 
tbcni,  and  to  the  builder,  by  Fraser,  Trenholm  &  Co.  It  is  evident  that 
these  circumstances,  even  if  they  had  been  verified,  could  produce  no 
more  than  a  bare  suspicion. 

Mr.  Adams,  it  is  true,  said  that,  should  further  evidence  be  held  ne- 
cessary, he  would  "make  an  effort  to  procure  it  in  a  more  formal  man- 
ner." All  that  Mr.  Dudley  knew  was  known  to  Mr.  Adams.  Does  he, 
ilien,  when  the  results  of  the  inquiries  directed  by  the  government  were 
(oniniunicated  to  him  on  the  L'Oth  February,  more  than  three  weeks 
before  the  sailing  of  th(!  ship,  hasten  to  furnish  the  government  with 
the  proofs  which  the  latter  had  been  unable  to  obtain  for  itself  ?  No; 
he  remains  silent  until  the  25th  March,  after  the  ship  has  sailed.  Either 
lie  had  information  on  which  the  government  could  act  and  did  not  im- 
part it,  or  he  had  none.  It  is  not  very  material  which  branch  of  the 
alternative  is  true;  but,  from  the  fact  that  no  information  possessed  by 
him  at  that  time  has  ever  been  produced,  as  well  as  from  the  whole  tenor 
of  Mr.  Dudley's  correspondence,  we  may  nssume  that  the  truth  lies  in 
the  second. 

It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  was  the  first  case  (with  one  excep- 
tion) in  which  a  representation  of  this  kind  was  madt?  to  the  British 
;'ovenunent.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  piefended  that  Mr.  Adams  was 
discouraged  or  deterred  from  furnishing  information  by  any  i)revious 
iiefflect  or  refusal  to  act  on  the  part  of  the  (irovernment.  The  only  case 
whieli  had  occurred  before  was  that  of  the  Bermuda,  in  which  Mr. 
A(huns,  though  he  "believed"  and  Mas  "morally  certain"  that  the 
vessel  was  to  be  used  for  war,  proved  to  be  mistaken.^ 

What  the  government  did  on  receiving  Mr.  Adams's  representation  is 
stated  in  the  Jiritish  Case.  Inquiry  was  instantly  directed,  but  no  in- 
'onnation  whatever  could  be  obtained  tending  to  connect  the  vessel  in 


'  Pages  5H  ct  seq. 

-Appendix  to  liritish  Case.  vol.  ii.  p. 


133. 


^1  W&  I 
ill  l?-!- 

:  ^w    ,,  ■  ■ 


'1; 


r; 


'I 
11 


11     i 


i: 


j^  ■ 


*« 


4 


302 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


any  way  with  the  (Joufederate  States.  Sae  was  dechirod  by  the  l)uikl(i 
to  be  ordered  for  a  firm  at  Palermo,  a  member  of  which  was  registered. 
on  his  own  declaration,  as  her  sole  owner,  and  had  frequently  visited 
her  when  building.  She  had  on  board  no  arms  or  military  supplies, 
The  statement,  at  page  "242  of  the  Case  of  the  United  States,  that  she 
had  gKiis  on  board,  is  erroneous.^  Her  first  destination,  as  stated  in 
her  clearance,  was  Palermo,  and  her  crew  were  nominally  (and,  as:  they 
evidently  believed,  really)  hired  for  a  mercantile  voyage.  (Jn  tlie  one 
iiand  were  the  positive  statements  of  the  builder,  the  registered  owner. 
and  the  collector  of  customs;  on  the  other,  the  suspicion  of  Mr.  Dudley 
that  the  vessel  was  still  intended  by  her  owner  to  pass,  sooner  or  later. 
into  the  hands  of  the  confederate  government.  But  a  suspicion  is  one 
thing,  reasonable  grounds  of  belief  another;  and  the  British  govern 
ment,  while  it  would  have  been  bound  to  act  on  a  reasonable  belief 
that  there  was  a  present  fixed  intention  to  employ  her  as  a  confederate 
ship  of  war,  was  neither  bound  by  international  duty  nor  empowered  liy 
its  municipal  law  to  act  on.  a  bare  suspicion  that  she  might  pass  iiitu 
that  employment. 

The  circumstances  that  occurred  between  the  arrival  of  the  Florida  at 
^Nassau,  on  the  28th  Ai)ril,  l.SOli,  and  her  departure  thence  on  or  aboiir 
the  7th  August  following,  have  been  inaccurately  and  imperfectly  stated 
in  the  Case  of  the  United  States,  and,  as  Her  Majesty's  government  be 
lieves,  accurately  in  that  of  Great  Britain. 

It  is  not  correct  that  the  United  States  consul,  soon  after  the  arrival 
of  the  vessel  at  Xassau,  "  called  the  attention  of  the  governor  to  lici 
well-known  character,"  and  that  the  governor  declined  to  interfere.- 
Tiie  Ujiited  States  consul,  after  mentioning  the  arrival  of  the  ship,  rep 
resented  that  it  was  believe<l  and  reported  by  many  residents  in  tiic 
])lace  "  that  she  is  being  prepared  and  fitted  out  as  a  confederate  \ni 
vateer;"  and  he  requested  that  some  in(|uiry  might  be  made  to  ascertain 
how  far  ^ho  was  ''preserving  the  strict  neutrality"  enjoined  by  tin 
i^iieen's  proclamation.'  He  was  immediately  answered  that  iniiuiric^ 
should  be  made.    They  were  made  accordingly,  and  the  consul  was  in 

formed  (as  the  fact  was)  that  no  attempt  had  been  or  was  lieiii; 
|7G|      made  to  arm  the  ship.    The  governor  «lid  *not  "  a<!cept  the  state 

ment  of  the  insurgent  agents/"  of  whom  he  knew  nothing,  and 
with  whom  he  had  nothing  to  do,  bui  that  of  the  mercantile  firiii  Ui 
whom  she  was  consigned,  and  who  were  the  only  persons  known  to  have 
any  connection  witli  her,  and  the  ])roper  i>ersons  to  refer  to.  Slie  wa> 
not  "permitted  to  remain  at  Cochrane's  Ancdiorage"  without  elfeetual 
precautions  being  taken  to  i>revent  a  violation  of  the  law.^  It  is  in)t 
'^rrect  that  "a  secoml  request  to  in<|uire  into  her  character  was  iiiadt 
on  the  4th  of  .June  and  refused."  The  consul,  on  the  4th  June,  inquired 
whether  ;  kq)s  had  been  taken  to  as(;ertain  her  character,  antl  was 
answered  in  the  afiirmative.  The  governor  "  had  directed  steps  to  Ix 
taken  to  ascertain  whether  there  was  anything  in  the  equipinoiit  m 
character  of  the  Oreto  which  coidd  legally  disentitle  her  to  the  bospi 
talities  of  the  port."^  She  was  not  arrested  on  the  7th  June,  nor  was 
she  released  on  the  arrival  of  Semmes  mi  the  island  ;  nor  does  it  appear 
that  the  Bahama  was  arrested,  or  that  the  latter  vessel  was  ever  niadt 

'This  oiror  in  i)rot)iil>l.v  tliie  ti)  an  ovor.si<;ht  aiisiiijj  from  a  iiiincoiicoptioii  as  to  tli< 
meaning  of  certain  blaui\8  in  a  eonuuon  luintoil  form  of  cloarancts  (See  Caseof  (JrtMt 
lii'itain,  pi>.  fiti,  r»7.) 

■'L'ase  or"  the  I'nited  States,  p.  ;541. 

^  Appoiuli.:  to  BritiMli  Case,  vol.  i,  p.  14. 

^  UritlHu  Case,  pp.  (il,  iVi;  Appendix  to  ditto,  vol.  I,  pp.  Ifi,  H. 

•'■•  Appendix  to  llritish  Case,  p.  *iO. 


m  !|l' 'W«!W|i-Hff' 


COl'NTER    CASK    OF    GREAT   BRITAIN. 


303 


the  subject  of  any  eomplaiut.  Lastly,  it  is  said  that  the  consul,  iinding 
his  representations  to  the  yovernor  useless,  "  applied  to  Captain  Jlick- 
ley,  of  the  Greyhound,  and  laid  before  him  the  evidence  which  had 
already  been  laid  before  the  civil  authorities.  He  answered  by  seudiuji- 
ji  tile  of  marines  on  board  the  Oreto,  and  taking  her  into  custody."' 
This  statement  is  wholly  and  completely  unfounded,  and  is  shown  to  be 
so  even  by  the  documents  referred  to.  Captain  Hickley  seized  the  ves- 
M'l  on  the  IGth,  upon  the  complaint  of  the  sailors,  who  had  been  de- 
tiauded  t  y  a  deviation  from  the  voyage  for  which  they  had  been  hired ; 
and  on  tlio  17th  he  renewed  the  seizure,  with  the  sanction  and  authority 
of  the  governor,  who  immediately  gave  direction  that  proceedings  should 
he  instituted  against  her  in  the  vice-admiralty  court  of  the  colony.-  On 
neither  occasion  does  it  ap[)ear  that  Captain  Hickley  had  any  commu- 
nication with  Mr.  Whiting.  The  consul  did,  however,  subsequently 
address  to  that  officer  a  letter,  which  would  alone  have  been  sufficient 
to  justify  any  government  in  withdrawing  his  exequatur,  an  impropriety 
lor  which  he  received  a  merited  reproof. ' 

It  cannot  be  denied,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  that  the  Florida 
was  seized  while  at  i^assau,  on  charge  of  a  violation  of  the  foreign- 
(idistment  act ;  that  proceedings  wen?,  by  the  governor's  directions, 
instituted  in  the  proper  courts,  with  a  view  to  her  euiiucmiiation ',  or 
that,  after  a  regular  trial,  she  was  ultimately  released  by  a  judicial  sen- 
tt'iiee.  i-ut,  in  order  to  destroy  or  diminish  the  etiect  of  these  proceed- 
in^;')  .^tei.  ,''-•  have  been  made,  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States,  to 
attack  M'f  f  .  acter  and  integrity  of  the  colonial  authorities,  and  im- 
pute tot  lie  priu(!ipal  law-officer  of  the  colony  deliberate  dishonestj' in 
the  discharge  of  his  oHicial  duties.  On  the  pretext  that  in  otiier  matters 
III'  luul  acted  i)rofessionally  as  advocate  for  the  mercantile  house  who 
were  consignees  of  the  vessel,  he  is  accused  of  having,  as  counsel  for  the 
I'rowii.  so  conducted  the  case  intrusted  to  him  as  to  secure  its  defeat, 
lioiii  motives  of  i)rivate  interest  or  partiality  ;'  of  having  neglected  to 
mil  witnesses  who  could  prove  the  facts,  and  managed  his  cross-exam- 
ination of  witnesses  for  the  defense  so  as  to  suppress  imi)ortant  evidence; 
iiiiii,  lastly,  of  having  intentionally  hurried  on  the  trial  before  evidence 
iimld  be  obtained  fr<!m  lOngland.  "  Uer  3Iajesty's  government,''  the 
arliitrators  are  tohl,  ''  evidently  considered  that  it  would  be  relevant  and 
liiopt'r  to  show  the  condition  of  the  v«  ssel  when  she  left  Liverpool;  and 
>lioul(l  it  appear,  as  \{  did  appear,  in  Captain  llickley's  testimony,  that 
at  tile  time  of  her  Icuing  sh«  was  ft  ted  out  as  a  man-of-war,  witli  in- 
tent to  cruise  ag.tJ'.  >t  Vn  5Jnited  Stares,  then  it  would  be  entirely  with- 
in the  scope  of  *'  e  ;  ;i,»  ms  of  the  court  in  Nassau  to  condemn  her  for  a 
violation  of  the  fo;ei;  <  iiJ.stnuMit  act  of  1811».  Had  the  trial  not  been 
!  liiuriod  on,  such  pro!  i-  'y  v  ould  have  been  the  instructions  from  J.on- 
I  doii."^ 

Her  Mnjesty's  government  thinks  it  right  to  say  that  there  \>\  not  the 

I ''lightest  foundation  for  these  imputations.     There  is  no  reason  what- 

fver  to  suppose  that  the  triii!  did  not  come  on  in  regular  "ourse,  tr  that 

tile  ease  was  not  properly  conducted  on  the  pj-.rt  of  the  Cru>\n.    That 

the  counsel  for  the  Crown  shouhl  have  refrained  from  calling  witnesses 

[«hose  interests  were  strongly  on  the  side  of  the  defense  needs  no  ex- 

I'lanation  to  r  ;y  i-ne  accpuunted  with  the  rules  of  English  judicial  pro- 

'  ronf  of  the  United  StatcH,  p.  'M2. 

"■  A?i;  •'  i,x  to  Britiali  Case,  vol.  i,  pp.  'i'.i/Ii, 

"io:rl.,  p.  'A6. 

^Oase  of  the  United  States,  p.  344. 
''Ibid.,  p.  347. 


.■  I 


,-  if    -' 


V   *. 


In 


I 


W' 


304 


TRKATY    OF    WA8HIN(iT0\. 


coduro,  since.  Jiccordinji:  to  those  rules,  the  party  who  calls  a  witness Ls 
ill  general  precluded,  should  the  evidence  whicii  he  gives  be  unfavor- 
able, from  impeaching  the  witness's  credibility ;  nor  can  he  compel  bim 
to  answer  any  questions  which  would  expose  the  witness  to  a  penalty. 
or  to  prosecution  for  any  offense  against  the  law.  The  evidence  of  Cap- 
tain Ilickley  neither  did,  nor  possibly  could,  prove  anything  as  to  tlie 
extent  to  which  the  vessel  ha(l  been  litted  out  when  she  left  Liverpool. 
It  is  perfectly  true  (and  was,  indeed,  explicitly  stated  in  the 
f  77 ]  liritish  Case)  *that  the  exclusion  of  e  cidence  relating  to  act.s  done 
while  the  ship  was  at  Liverjiool  was,  in  the  opinion  of  Her  Jliij. 
esty's  government,  an  erroneous  ruling  on  the  part  of  the  judge.  Biit 
the  (juestion  was  at  least  open  to  reasonal)le  doubt,  and  it  can  bardly 
be  necessary  to  inform  the  arbitrators  that  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  Her 
Majesty's  government  to  "instruct"  a  Judge,  M'hether  in  the  United 
Kingdom  or  in  a  colony  or  dependency  of  the  Crown,  how  to  decide  a 
particular  case  or  question.  iS'o  judge  in  Uer  Majesty's  dominions  would 
submit  to  be  so  instructed  ;  no  community,  however  small,  would  toler 
ate  it ;  no  minister,  however  powerful,  could  ever  think  of  attemptinff  it. 
In  the  following  extract  from  a  report  transmitted  by  the  adniinis 
trator  and  attorneygener;'!  of  the  colony  these  charges  are  completely 
<lisi)osed  of: 

The  flinifios  :iro  liingtHl  nii<lcr  i  (owing  heads,  page  '.W.i:  That  the  attorney- 

general  hurried  on  the  trial  heloro  ;  , -nee  could  ho  obtained  from  Liviuiiool ;  tliat 
he  eondneted  the  cross-examination  so  as  to  su|>itress  evidence  unfavorable  to  tiu' 
C)n'to,  and  that  certain  named  witnessed  who  <'onld  have  shown  that  the  Oreto  wib 
hnilt  for  the  insurgents,  and  was  to  be  converted  into  a  man-of-war,  were  not  called  ;b 
they  ought  to  have  been  ;  and  there  is  a  general  charge  previiding  the  foregoiiijr,  and 
otherwise  specially  stated,  of  niiscondnct  on  the  part  of  tlie  attorney-general. 

'I'aking  these  seriatim,  tlu\v  are  as  follows  : 

First,  that  the  trial  Avas  <':irried  on  before  evidence  could  be  obtained  from  Liv«i- 
pool,  'i'he  answer  to  this  is.  that  the  vessel  was  jtroceeded  .'(gainst  only  for  iU'tsdi' 
r(|nipnient  alleged  to  have  t.iken  place;  within  the  limits  of  the  IJahama  Islands.  It 
was  considered,  whether  rightly  or  wrongly,  that  the  )'oint  was  settled  by  the  dicis- 
i  >n  in  the  case  of  the  Fabius,  ('id  C.  Kob.,  page  'iJf),)  which  was  an  apiieiil  freni 
the  identical  court,  tlie  vice-admiralty  court  of  the  lialiainas,  and  in  which  it  hml 
been  decided  that  vicci-admiralty  courts  had  no  Jurisdiction  to  take  cogniziuue  h| 
oll'enses  coniniittcd  out  of  tlie.  limits  of  their  local  Jurisdiction,  and  that  jirosenitidii- 
under  the  foreign-enlistment  act  were  not  witliin  tlie  sixth  section  of  2  Will.  4,  c. 'd. 
which  gave  an  csxtended  Jurisdiction  to  that  <'ourt  in  certain  sjtecilied  cases,  a  luisitiun 
which  may  he  considered  as  athrmed  hy  the  legislative  action  which  has  been  takni 
on  the  point  by  the  JSritish  legislature  in  tl:  ■  vice-admiralty  court  acts,  20  Vict.,  tiip. 
'24.  section  K?. 

This  being  th(>  conclusion  arrived  at,  it  was  not  considered  necessary,  in  fact  it  ^vas 
never  suggested,  that  evidence  coidd  be  obtained  Irom  England;  but  it  was  coi^id- 
ered  that  the  evidence  of  the  mate  and  crew  of  tlio  Oreto,  ccmibiued  with  that  ofC;',!i- 
tain  Ilickley  and  the  other  naval  oflicers,  was  snlhcieut  to  show  the  animus  with  wbiili 
the  vessel  was  dispatched  from  Liverpool  and  her  adajitation  for  warlike  puriioses: 
iiiid  this  is  a<lmitted  in  the  case,  as,  at  page  'M'A,  the  following  paragraphs  are  lomid: 
"The  Judge,  in  <leciding  the  case,  disregardt'd  the  jiositive  i>roof  of  the  character, in- 
tent, and  ownershi))  of  the  vessel."  And  again:  "The  overwhelming  testiinoiiy  ei 
Cajitain  Ilickley  and  his  crew  was  snmmarily  dispo.sed  of."  And  again  :  "  Wliiletlms 
ruling  out,  either  as  fal.se  or  irrelevant,  evidence  against  the  vessel  which  evcnt>  | 
proved  to  he  true  and  relevant,  he  gave  a  willing  ear  of  credence  to  the  niisstiiteuu-iits 
of  the  persons  connected  with  the  Oreto ;"  allegations  that  completely  relieve  tin 
prosecuting  oflicer  of  the  charges  hrought  again.st  him  at  page  ^44,  and  throw  the  onus 
of  failure  on  the  Jtidge,  hns  producing  in  the  short  sjiace  of  two  pages  contradiitmy 
accusations  against  two  .)fllicer8  of  the  government,  tiic  one  of  which,  if  well  fouiidiMl. 
woulil  art'ord  comi)leto  refutation  to  the  other. 

Secondly,  that  the  attorney-general  conducted  the  cross-examination  so  as  to  siii'- 
press  evidence  nnfavorublo  to  the  Oreto  when  it  could  be  done. 

This  is  a  charge  which  can  only  be  met  with  a  positive  and  iiulignnut  doiiiul. 
Whether  tlie  croHs-oxamination  was  conducted  skillfully  or  not  is,  of  course,  another 
•  luestion,  which  must  bo  Judged  of  from  the  examinations  forwarded.  j 

Thirdly,  the  neglect  to  summon  witne  sos  who  ciuild  have  given  material  eviilencf, 


TP^p^^sfrm 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


305 


jM 


led  fnmi  Liv.i- 


n  80  as  to  Slip- 


ami  especially  the  omission  to  exaniino  Maftit,  Heylijjcr,  anil  AiUlerley.  Now,  if  the 
.illcgiitions  iu  the  United  States  Case  arc  well  founded,  each  of  these  jiersons  was 
ir/i'oeps  crimlnin  in  the  equipment  of  the  Oroto,  ami  was  liable  to  be  proceeded  against 
criminally  for  a  misdemeanor,  and,  on  conviction,  to  be  punished  by  tine  and  irapris- 
oiinipnt,  and,  therefore,  they  could  not  have  been  compelled  to  give  evidence  Icivding 
to  the  condemnation  of  the  vessel  for  acts  of  equipment  within  the  colony,  which 
would  necessarily  have  tended  to  criminate  themselves,  and,  consequently,  it  never 
(iitered  into  the  minds  of  the  attorney-general  or  of  Captain  Hickley,  who  was  iu 
(laik  consultation  with  thatofticcr,  to  attempt  to  examine  those  parties,  vor  any  other 
mrsons  iu  the  supposed  service  of  the  Confederate  States.  The  existence  of  such  per- 
ms  as  P^ans  and  Chapman,  who  are  named  9t  page  345  of  the  Case,  was  entirely 
unknown  to  the  attorney-general,  and  also,  it  is  believed,  to  Commander  Hickley,  who 
never  named  them  to  that  officer.  One  important  witness,  and  one  only,  was  lost  to 
ilie  prosecution,  namely  Jones,  the  boatswain  of  the  Oreto,  who  had  originallj'  given 
the  information  to  Commander  Hickley  which  mainly  led  to  tl:^  arrest  of  the  vessel. 
He  disappeared  before  he  conld  be  examined,  and  was  supposed  to  have  been  induced 
In  persons  in  the  interests  of  the  vessel  to  go  away. 

Iiuguid,  the  master  of  the  Oreto,  was,  as  will  be  seen  on  reference  to  his  examina- 
tion. (lUPstioncd  on  the  point,  but  he  particularly  denied  all  knowledge  of  the  move- 
imnts  of  the  man. 

With  the  exception  of  Jones,  every  one  was  examined  who  could  have  been  com- 
i«  lied  to  give  evidence,  and  Jones  was  only  not  examined  because  he  secretly  removed 
himself  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court. 

Another  very  grer^c  inisstatement  with  respect  to  the  trial  of  the  Oreto  is  ni.ide  at 
li;ii:c  :<45.  It  is  there  stated  that  the  cross-examination  of  Captain  Hickley  was  con- 
iliioted  by  a  gentlemen  who  was  represented  to  be  the  solicitor-general  of  the  colony, 
!iiit  who  in  that  case  appeared  against  the  Crown.  From  the  foot-note  (2)  this  state- 
innit  would  api>ear  to  have  been  made  on  the  authority  of  Ccmsul  Kirkpatrick,  and, 
;l  •'11.  it  proves  that  little  reliance  is  to  be  placed  on  that  person's  statements.  Mr.  B.  L. 
Bnrnside,  a  bar 'ister  of  Lincoln's  Inn,  was  the  counsel  referred  to,  and  at  the 
[>]  time  (1H(!"<J)  'he  held  no  olliee  whatever  under  the  Crown  ;  and  the  United  States 
Goverunifut  have,  through  the  errors  of  their  informants,  contbunded  the  case 
111  tlie  Mary  ot'  Ah^xandra,  tned'in  IHCm,  with  that  of  the  Oreto  in  18(52.  In  May,  18154, 
Mr.  liiiniside,  however,  was  appointed  solicitor-general,  and  at  the  time  of  the  seizure 
III  the  Mary  he  held  that  otlicc;,  when,  being  employed  in  that  case  as  counsel  for  the 
laiuiiint,  he  cross-examined  Captaiu  Preston,  of  the  British  navy,  a  witness  produced 
;iir  the  prosecution  ;  but,  on  the  fact  becoming  known  to  the  governor  that  the  solici- 
tiir-j;eneriil  was  so  employed,  he  was  called  on  either  to  give  up  his  brief  or  resign  his 
iii!i.  e.  and  he  chose  to  <lo  the  latter. 

Ill  concluding  the  remarks  on  this  part  of  the  Cuse  of  the  United  States,  it  is  conli- 
i.d.rly  submitted  that  the  arrest  and  trial  of  the  <.)ieto  at  Nassau  was  a  b(»ia-Jide  pro- 
iii-Jinj;.' 

The  vice-admiralty  court  of  Xassau  was  a  court  of  compete?  t  Juris- 
diction ;  the  authorities  of  the  colony  were  bound  to  pay  obeiuence  to 
ils  decree  ;  and,  as  soon  as  it  was  pronounced,  the  persons  claiming  the 
possession  of  the  vessel  were  entitled  to  have  her  immediately  released. 
She  was  released  accordingly,  and  sailed  from  Xassau  unarmed,  having 
ileaml  as  a  merchant  steamer,  and  with  a  crew  hired  in  the  port,  and 
bnlly  sufficient  to  navigate  her,  on  or  about  the  7th  August,  18G2, 
Tlic  liiring  of  seamen  at  Nassau  coidd  not  have  been  treated  as  an 
'lilwise  against  law,  since  there  was  nothing  to  show  that  they  were 
intended  for  the  service  of  the  Confederate  States.  Nor  does  it  appear 
tliat  tbey  were,  in  fact,  enlisted  for  that  service.^ 

Ajipendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  v,  p.  11>. 

•It  is  stated  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States,  as  if  it  had  some  importance,  that  tlm 
•  iiiida  lay  outside  with  a  hawser  attached  to  one  of  Her  Majesty's  ships  of  war.  The 
■i"lile  cxplamition  of  this  trivial  fact  is  as  follows  :  The  Poterel,  a  (Queen's  ship,  was 
;!iiii  lyino  ill  tlie  harbor,  and  two  United  States  ships  of  war  were  also  there.  The 
"imjiander  of  the  I'eterel,  at  the  governor's  request,  crossed  the  bar  to  oft'er  these  ves- 
^!s  tilt'  ciistonniry  hosjtitalities  of  the  port,  which  they  declined,  proceeding  soon 
■itkrward  to  sea.  The  I'eterel  remained  anchored  outside  the  bar,  in  couseciuence  of 
'le lateness  of  the  hour  or  the  state  of  the  tide.  A  boat  soon  afterward  came  to  her 
"iin  the  Florida,  (then  known  as  the  Orete,  and  under  British  colors,)  with  a  recjuest, 
i'''«liich  the  following  account  is  given  by  the  ofticer  who  wiis  then  iu  comumnd  of 
'111'  I'eterel : 
"A  man,  who  stated  he  was  the  master  in  command  of  the  Oteto,  said  he  was  very 
i ' I'Tt-lianded,  and  wanted  to  anchor  for  about  two  hours  to  adjust  his  machinery,  but 

20  A— II 


*' 


,r  *• 


J  J 


30G 


ritEATY    OF    WASHINGTON, 


•1 


It  is  attirmed  iu  the  Case  of  the  United  States  that  the  riorida,  aftn 
<iuitting  Nassau,  was  ariiied  for  war,  by  means  of  a  vessel  whicli  acconi 
panied  her  from  tliat  port,  at  one  of  the  Bahama  Ishinds,  aii«l,  tliort^ 
fore,  within  J3ritish  waters;  and,  in  proof  of  this,  several  depositions 
are  produced,  i)uri)orting  to  have  been  made  by  common  seamen  ami 
others  who  Avere  hired  to  assist  in  tlie  work.  From  these  it  would  ap 
pear  that,  before  the  Florida  sailed,  a  schooner,  calle«l  the  I'rincii  All'ml. 
carrying  as  cargo  some  guns  and  ammunition,  together  with  other  sup- 
plies, i>ut  to  sea  from  isassau,^s  though  with  the  design  of  running  tlic 
blockade ;  that  she  was  overtaken  by  the  Florida  about  thrive  limu> 
after  the  latter  had  leit  the  harbor,  and  that  both  vessels  proceeded  u 
a  place  called  (Jreen  Cay,  where  the  cargo  of  the  I'rince  Alfred  wib 
transferred  to  the  Florida,  an  operation  which  lasted  several  days.  The 
latter  (which  up  to  that  time  had  been  known  as  the  Oreto)  then  lioisted 
the  confederate  tiag,  and  assumed  the  name  under  which  she  has  siiuv 
been  known.  The  Prince  Alfred  did  not  for  some  time  return  to  >.'ii> 
sau,  her  captain  being  apprehensive  that  she  might  be  seized  for  a  vin 
lation  of  the  law  in  assisting  to  arm  and  tit  out  the  Florida  in  iiritish 
waters. 

Her  Majesty's  government  has  not  the  means  of  either  verityiiifr  01 
disproving  the  truth  of  this  statement.  Assuming  it  to  be  irne,  then 
can  be  no  doubt  that  a  violation  of  the  sovereignty  an<l  neutral  rights 
of  Gi'eat  Britain  was  committed  by  the  coinnumder  of  the  Florida.  ISut 
the  fact  that  such  a  violation  occurred  does  not  argue  negligence  011  the 
part  of  Her  Majesty's  government.  It  took  place,  indeed,  in  Britisi! 
waters,  since  the  whole  group  or  chain  of  islands  known  by  the  naim 
of  the  Bahamas  are  held  to  be  under  the  dominion  of  Great  Britain. 
But  of  these  islands,  which  number  several  hundred,  and  are  scatteiii! 
over  a  wide  surface,  all  but  a  very  few  are  desolate  and  uninhabited. 
and  many  are  mere  rocks  or  islets.  Green  Cay  (which,  if  we  may  trust 
the  testimony  of  the  deponents,  was  the  spot  selected  for  this  trausai 
tion)  is  a  snmll,  uninhabited  island,  lying  sixty  miles  or  more  soutli  oi 
Nassau,  on  the  edge  of  what  is  called  the  Great  Bahama  Bank,  and 
visited,  as  Her  Majsty's  government  believes,  only  by  tishermeii 
[79]  *Neutral  powers  have  never  been  held  responsible  for  violations 
of  their  territory  committed  in  remote  and  unfrequented  places, 
where  no  effective  control  could  be  exercised ;  and  it  is  certain  that. 
over  such  a  dominion  as  the  Bahamas,  no  government  could  reasonablv 
be  expected  to  exert  such  a  conti'ol  as  to  prevent  the  possibility  tbiu 
acts  of  this  kind  might  be  furtively  done  iu  some  iiart  of  its  shores  01 
waters. 

The  Friuce  Alfred  sailed  from  Nassau  as  any  vessel  intended  to  run  | 
the  blockade  might  have  done,  while  the  Florida  was  still  lying  in  the 
harbor;  and  there  appears  to  have  been  no  circumstance  within  the  I 


if  he  anclioretl  outside  he  h.id  not  sufticient  crew  to  weigh  his  anchor,  and  bpjigwl  1 
would  assirtt  him  hy  lending  him  men.  I  declined  lending  him  any  man  ;  but  toldlur 
he  might  hold  on  astern  of  tiic  Petrel,  and  I  would  gi\e  him  a  line  for  that  purpose. 

"About  ().'J0  or  7  p.  m.,  having  seen  the  Oreto  fast,  holding  on  by  one  of  our  liiiflsir- 
I  went  down  to  dinner;  and  when  I  camo  on  deck  again  she  was  gone. 

"I  had  told  the  master  that  slie  must  go  out  of  our  way  before  the  tide  Htiirti'd. 

"This  small  act  of  courtesy  I  considered  a  duty  that  I  should  have  extenditl  toai. 
ship,  British  or  foreign,  and,  until  the  receijtt  of  your  communication,  never  j;aveit.i 
second  thought;  in  fact,  I  must  Iiave  thought  it  too  trivial  to  nuuition  in  my  Itttern! 
proceedings  which  at  that  tiuu)  were  full  of  matter  of  the  greatest  interest. 

"In  conclusion  I  may  remark  that  the  oidy  reason  I  had  for  refusing  to  .'<i'iid  nn. 
on  hoard  was  in  consequence  of  the  prevalence  of  yellow  fever  iu  the  uu'reliatitfi'"l| 
]»ing  nt  Nassau,  and  I  had  prohibited  all  communication,  so  far  as  practicable,  wi!  I 
them." 


W"»f»"!!'''^#"t!P 


COUNTKR   CASE    OF   (iREAT    HRITAIN. 


307 


M'ida,  after 
licli  accom- 
and,  tlien- 
ilepositioiis 
eamen  aiul 
t  would  a]! 
lice  Allri'il. 
I  other  su[i- 
'unning  tlif 
;lir(H',  li(mv> 
roceedod  tu 
AllVed  \vit> 
I  days.  Til.' 
.lieii  lioisU'd 
ic  has  siiuv 
urn  to  >'a> 
sd  for  a  \\u- 
a  in  liritish 

verifyiiifr  oi 
;  irne,  tlieiv 
nitral  riglitv 
lorida.   lUit 
genee  ou  tlie 
1,  in  Biitisi) 
by  the  name 
•eat  Britain. 
ire  scattered 
iininhabited, 
ve  may  trust 
lis  transac- 
ore  soutli  ot 
Bank,  and 
tisheriuen 
'or  viohitio'.i- 
lilted  places, 
certain  that. 
.  reasonably 
ssibility  tbiit 
its  shores  oi 

ended  to  run 
lying  in  the 
e  within  th.- ! 


•  ami  IJt'fl?'''' ' 
but  told  luv 
that  purpose, 
ol'onr  hiiwjirv 

le  Htarted. 
xti'iulod  to  ai ; 
ijtiver  ^ave  it  ■< 
ill  my  letter": 

h-Bt. 

„i,.lTli:mt8l'll'' 
•acticable,  with 


knowledge  of  the  authorities  of  the  colony  to  direct  special  attention  to 
be  nature  of  her  cargo,  to  disclose  her  errand,  or  furnish  a  reason  for 
detaining  her.  No  conii)lainton  the  subject  was  made  before  she  sailed 
ly  the  consul  of  the  United  States,  though  it  is  now  alleged  that  the 
iiurpose  for  which  she  went  was  "notorious"  in  Nassau.  Subsequently, 
,(11  the  8tli  September,  18G2,  when  the  Prince  Alfred  was  again  at  the 
port,  the  consul  informed  the  governor  that  he  had  good  authority  for 
stating  that  this  vessel  had  placed  the  Florida's  armament  on  board  her 
It  Green  Cay,  and  that  the  Trince  Alfred's  captain  was  again  shipping 
men  to  be  sent  to  the  Florida.  The  governor  reidied  that  if  suflicienr 
.'vidence  could  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  attorney-goneral  to  sub- 
ititiitiate  this  allegation,  he  would  direct  a  inosecution  to  be  instituted 
ifrainst  the  captain  of  the  Prince  Alfred  or  others  who  might  hav(»  been 
guilty  of  violating  the  foreign-enlistment  act.  Upon  this  conimunicii- 
rioii  the  consul  .seems  to  have  taken  no  stei>s  whatever:  aiK*.,  although 
rbas  since  appeared  that  he  had  previously  procured  a  notarial  dccla- 
'.ation  from  some  of  the  men  employed  on  the  IMincc  Alfred,  the  evi- 
dence thus  obtained  was  never  communicated  or  di.sclo.sed  to  the  colonial 
uithorities  or  to  Uer  Majesty's  government,  until  Februiiry.  1S(m.  Cnp- 
ainMatht  had  at  that  time  arrived  at  Nassau  in  command  of  the  nier- 
ibant'essel  Owl,  which  had  run  the  blockade,  and  the  then  United 
States  consul  made  an  application  to  the  governor  for  i»roceedings 
ijirainst  him  on  the  ground  that  he  had  enlisted  men  in  the  cok)nv  lor 
lie  Florida  in  1SG2.  This  application  was  not  received  until  after  Cap- 
tain Matfit  had  left  Nassau,  but  the  governor  directed  the  attorney- 
L'cneral  to  communicate  with  the  consul,  and  the  declaration  of  4th 
September,  18G2,  above  referred  to,  (which  contained  no  evidence  of 
tulistinent,)  was  then  i)roduced  for  tlie  flr.st  time.' 

The  arbitrators  are  already  aware  that  the  Florida  went  from  the 
Paliamas  to  Cuba,  where  she  endeavored  to  ship  a  crew,  and  from  thence 
Mare  making  any  prize  or  inflicting  any  loss  on  the  Uii'ted  States)  was 
arried  by  her  commander  into  the  confederate  port  of  Mobile,  escaping 
•aptnre  through  the  remissness  or  incapacity  of  the  officer  commanding 
the  blockading  squadron ;  that  at  Mobile  she  remained  more  than  four 
months;  that  she  was  there  fitted  out  and  put  in  a  condition  for  cruis- 
iiig;  and  that  from  thence  she  commenced  her  cruise.  The  crew  which 
manned  her  during  that  cruise  were  enlisted  at  Mobile,  aiul  the  greater 
lumber  of  them  appear  to  have  been  transferred  to  her  from  a  receiving- 
I'hip  in  that  port.  The  history  of  this  cruise  has  been  briefly  told  in  the 
British  Case.  It  has  been  seen  that  she  was  admitted,  during  the  course 
'tit,  into  ports  of  the  British  colonies,  of  Brazil,  and  France;  that  at 
lire.st  she  was  suffered  to  remain  during  nearly  six  months  repairing  and 
■efittinr  •  and  that  she  was  ultimately  seized  and  carried  away  from  a 
i  Brazilian  port  bv  a  gross  violation  of  the  neutrality  and  sovereign  rights 

'Brazil.^ 

On  the  fact  that  she  was  permitted  to  enter  ports  within  Her  Majesty's 

iitonial  i)ossessions,  the  United  States  have  endeavored  to  support  fur- 

[lier  complaints  and  further  claims  against  Great  Britain,  for  which 

I "lieie  is  no  foundation  whatever.    It  was  not  the  duty  of  the  British 

NijverDmoiit  to  seize  or  capture  the  Florida  when  cruising  under  a  com- 

riiis.Mdu  from   the  government  of  the  Confederate  States;    and  the 

liU'j^es  of  partiality  made  in  respect  of  this  vessel  are  as  groundless  as 
pilose  advanced  in  the  cases  of  the  Sumter  and  Nashville.    It  will,  how- 

'  Appendix  to  Uritish  Case,  vol.  i,  pp.  82-90. 
-Ca.se  of  Great  Britain,  pp.  67-78. 


.* 


H 

HI 

■ 

■••-■■ri: 

.-•■i 

^^H 

^^^B 

T :  ? 

■ 

It 

■  •!.  ,:i' 

f^ 

»» 

}i''S 

t, 

» ' 

■^ 

■1$ 

30H 


TKEATV    OF    WASHINGTON. 


ever,  be  for  the  couvenienee  of  tbe  arbitrators  that  they  should  be  fm. 
iiished  with  a  suniinary  account  of  the  hospitsilities  accorded  in  Lritisli 
ports  diiritiff  the  course  of  the  war  to  the  armed  vessels  of  both  belli" 
erents.    This  will  be  done  in  a  subsequent  section. 

With  respect  to  the  case  of  the  Florida,  Her  Majesty's  jjovernmeiit 
submit  with  confidence  to  the  arbitrators,  not  only  that  negligence  can 
not  Justly  be  imputed  to  Great  Britain,  but  that  (even  if  this  were  other 
wise)  (h-eat  Britain  could  not  be  held  liable  for  losses  sustained  by  tin' 
United  States  in  consequence  of  the  operations  of  that  vessel  after  she 
had  entered  the  port  of  Mobile,  had  there  completed  her  equipinent> 
and  enlisted  f«)r  the  first  time  a  sufticient  .crew,  and  had  ailerwanl 
sailed  from  that  port  to  cruise  against  the  shipping  of  the  UnikMi 
States. 


[SUl 


*TIIE   ALABAMA. 


Mr  i 


The  facts  relative  to  the  building,  departure,  and  subse«pient  armiii;.' 
of  the  Alabama  have  been  set  forth  in  the  British  Case  with 

'  ^ ' '" "  a  tnllness  of  detail  which  renders  any  additional  statements 
unneeessiiry  ;  and  Her  Majesty's  government  will  here  refer  to  them  sn 
far  only  as  may  be  re(piired  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  erroneous 
assertions  or  mistaken  inferences  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States. 

In  respect  to  this  ship.  Her  Majesty's  Government  does  not  disputi- 
that,  at  the  time  when  she  sailed  from  England  in  July,  18(52,  she  was 
as  regards  the  general  character  of  her  construction,  specially  adapted 
for  warlike  use,  nor  that  the  adaptation  had  been  effected  within  Ihitisli 
jurisdiction.  The  question  for  the  arbitrators  is,  whether  the  IJiitisli 
government  had,  according  to  the  fair  and  just  sense  of  those  words, 
reasonable  grounds  to  believe  that  she  w«as  intended  to  carry  on  war 
against  the  United  States,  and,  having  it,  failed  to  use  such  diligeiRc 
as  any  international  obligation  re«iuired  to  prevent  her  departure  from 
Great  Britain,  or  to  prevent  her  e«iuipment  within  its  jurisdiction. 

In  respect  of  this  ship  also,  as  in  respect  of  the  Florida,  it  is  insistoil 
by  the  United  States  that  the  material  facts  proving  her  true  character 
and  the  employment  for  which  she  was  intended  were  notorious,  and 
therefore  either  were  or  ought  to  have  been  known  to  Her  ]Majest,v'> 
government,  and  that  no  proof  ought  to  have  been  required  from  Mr. 
Adams.  It  is  insisted,  further,  that  not  only  proof  Avas  re(]uired,  but 
"  strict  technical  proof,"'  such  as  would  support  a  criminal  i)roseention 
under  the  foreign-enlistment  act.  The  arbitrators  are  also  told  that,  in 
this  case  and  throughout  the  war,  the  British-government  and  its  otlicers 
"would  originate  nothing  themselves  for  the  maintenance  and  perform 
ance  of  their  international  duties,"  and  *'  would  listen  to  no  represeuta 
tions  from  the  otlicials  of  the  United  States  which  did  not  furnish  tech- 
nical evidence''  sutlicient  for  the  purpose  mentioned  above. 

These  assertions  are  made  use  of  to  explain  the  fact  that,  altlionsh 
"  before  the  vessel  was  launched  she  became  an  object  of  suspicion  witii 
the  consul  of  the  United  States  at  that  port,  aud  she  was  the  subject  ot  j 
constant  correspondence  on  his  part  with  his  government  and  with  Mr. 
Adams,"  no  representation  was  made  respecting  her  either  to  the  Kritifsh  | 
government  or  to  its  officers  at  Liverpool  until  the  23d  June,  IHOi' 
Neither  the  fact  which  has  to  be  explained,  nor  the  expianatioii  oft'ored| 
for  it,  a'^pears  to  be  supported  by  the  evidence. 

Among  the  circumstances  alleged  as  proofs  of  an  intention  that  the 
vessel  should  be  employed  in  the  confederate  service  are  the  contract 
between  Bullock  aud  the  shipbuilder,  supposed  to  have  been  signed  iii| 


"^^■'"^w"  '•"■f  'MBV  '    ' 


COrXTEU    CASK    OF    (JltKAT    F5HITA1X 


309 


October,  lS<il,iiii(l  the  assorted  fiuits  tliiit  nulloek  "went  almost  daily'' 
iiiibortitl  of  her,  atul  "  seemed  to  be  reeoftiiized  in  authority,"  and  that 
her  oflicers  were  in  Enghind  awaitinj;  her  completion,  and  were  paid 
their  salaries  monthly  at  the  oflice  of  Fraser,  Tn'nholm  iS:  Co.,  in  reiver- 
pool. 

For  evidence  thatthe  Alabama  was  the  subject  of  constant  eoi  res]  >()th1- 
ciice  between  tiie  United  States  consul  at  Liverpool  and  his  (iovern- 
•iiciit  and  its  minister  in  London,  the  arbitrators  are  referred  to  the 
Appendix  to  the  Case  of  the  United  States,  vol.  iii,  passim."  ^  They  will 
iliseover  that,  before  the  date  of  ^Ir.  Adams's  first  representation  to  lOarl 
lliisscll,  (-3d  June,  1S02,)  she  is  only  thrice  mentioned  by  3Ir.  Dudley  in 
dispatches  to  ]\[r.  Seward — namely,  on  tin;  4th  of  Ai)ril,  KJth  ^lay,  and 
istli  -Iinie,  18()l.*.  On  the  27th  June  he  says  that  he  has  mentioned  her 
■ill  twoor  three  notes  to  the  Department."-  Tiiey  will  not  (Her  ^Lijesty's 
;'overiinient  believes)  lind  any  letters  addressed  to  jMr.  Adams  prior  to 
;!iat  on  which  he  founded  his  representation  to  Earl  liussell,  though 
:liere  probably  was  sucli  a  letter,  since  she  is  there  said  to  have  been 
;iieiitioiied  in  "a  previous  dispatch."^  The  constant  correspondence, 
therefore,  which  is  mentioned  in  the  case  did  not  commence  until  after 
;!ie  vessel  had  made  her  tlrst  trial-trip,  and  was  nearly  ready  to  {"O  to 
<oii,  and  a  very  few  weeks  before  she  sailed,  though  Mr.  Dudley's  atten- 
•ioii  had  been  directed  to  her  in  November,  180L  The  fact  that  IJulloclc 
•fjoes  almost  constantly  on  board  the  gunboat,  and  seems  to  be  recog- 
;iiml  as  in  authority,"  tirst  appears  in  a  letter  dated  9th  July,  1SG2,  ad- 
dressed to  the  collector  of  customs  at  Liverpool ;  and  the  collector  is, 
ill  the  same  letter,  told  that  Bullock  "  is  in  Liverpool,"  and  what  is  sup- 
;tosed  to  be  his  business  there.*  The  facts  that  the  contract  for  the  ship 
vas  made  with  Bullock,  and  that  confederate  officers  who  were  intended 
td  serve  on  board  of  her  were  in  Liveri)ool  and  receiving  pay  before  she 
siiiled,  tirst  ai^pear  in  a  deposition  of  one  Yonge,  sworn  and  comniuni- 
ated  to  Earl  Kussell,  in  April,  1S0;3.-' 

It  has  not  been  shown  by  the  United  States  that,  [uior  to  the  time 
when  Mr.  Adams  *laid  a  representation  before  Earl  llussell,  any 
^1]  circumstances  proving  or  tending  to  prove  that  the  ship  Avas 
intended  for  the  Confederate  States  were  notorious  or  generally 
known  at  Liverpool,  or  were  or  ought  to  have  been  known  to  the  Britisli 
government  or  any  of  its  oflujers.  Indeed,  beyond  a  report  that  one  of 
the  workmen  in  Laird's  yard  had  said  so,  no  fact  of  this  kind  is  found  in 
any  of  Mr.  Dudley's  previous  letters.  Such  a  statement  by  a  mere  work- 
Hiaii  would  not  be  evidence  in  any  British  court,  nor  is  it  consistent 
vith  probability  that  ordinary  workmen  in  the  yard  would  have  any 
Means  of  knowing  or  proving  the  real  destination  of  the  ship. 

That  the  vessel  was  designed  for  a  ship  of  war  was  doubtless  not  dif- 
ticult  to  discover,  but  there  was  nothing  in  this  to  attract  special  ob- 
servation. The  building  of  vessels  of  war  for  the  British  government 
imd  for  foreign  governments  or  their  agents  had  for  many  years  formed 
Uarge  part  of  the  regular  business  of  the  great  shipbuilding  firm  in 
^vhose  yard  she  was  constructed.  It  has  been  publicly  stated  by  Messrs. 
lainl,  and  Her  Majesty's  government  are  now  in  a  condition  to  prove  it 
to  be  the  fact,  that  shortly  before  the  contract  with  Bullock  was  said  to 
'lavc  been  made,  they  were  asked  to  send  in  plans  and  estimates  tor 

'  Case  of  tbe  United  States,  p.  'MW>. 

•^  Appeiuhx  to  ditto,  vol.  iii.  pp.  l-:5 ;  vol.  vi,  p.  :?77. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  5  ;  vol.  vi,  p.  I57«). 

■*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  18  ;  vol.  vi,  p.  :W4. 

'■  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  14.') ;  vol,  vi,  p.  4;{5. 


'& 


310 


TKHATV    DF    \VASIII\(;TON'. 


WiV    V 


ij|(^  ■■^4M'^f<;-^     ^- 


.liun-boat.s  and  a  lloatiii^'  battery  to  the  Navy  ])e|)!irtnieiit  oftlic  L'nitd', 
States  by  a  peison  who  represented  liimself,  and  was  believed  by  thcin.ti, 
b<'  authorized  by  the  head  of  that  J^epartment;  and  beiny'  (as  they  wciv 
(•oiiiniercial  men,  having-  only  eonnnereial  obJe(!ts  in  view,  tiiey  wciv 
perfectly  ready  to  have  sui)i»lied  these  articles  to  the  Tnited  States. ;; 
it  had  been  ])roposed  to  them  to  do  so  on  terms  which  they  eonsidorcd 
sulliciently  protitable.^ 

The  assertion  that  a  particular  fact  is  "  notorious''  is  one  the  tnit'.i  i.f 
which  there  is  no  possiliility  of  testing'.  It  commonly  means  no  inoiv 
than  that  the  fact  is  f^enerally  or  by  many  persons  believed  to  be  true. 
which  does  not  prove  the  truth  of  it  (since  a  g^eneral  belief  may  be,  anil 
often  is,  mistaken)  and  docs  not  always  make  it  even  probable  tlnir 
pioof  can  be  obtained.  If  a  general  belief  prevailed  in  Liverpool,  wbilc 
the  vessel  afterward  known  as  the  Alabama  was  in  the  builder's  yard. 
that  she  was  intended  for  the  Confederate  States,  (and  there  is  no  proof 
whatever  that  any  such  s'e'i<^i"il  belief  did,  in  fact,  exist,)  this  would  no; 
have  been  a  reasonable  jjround  for  calling  on  the  ji,overnment  to  seizcoi 
interfere  with  a  shi[>  which,  for  aujjht  that. was  known  to  the  contrary, 
was  the  i)roperty  of  private  individuals,  {•nilty  of  no  violation  of  tlic 
law. 

Tile  j)hrase  "  technical  evidence''  is  calcidated  to  mislead.  If  it  iiu'aii> 
such  evidence  as  might  be  expected  to  satisfy  an  impartial  tribunal  that 
ii  violation  of  the  law  liad  been  committed,  it  is  true  that  the  yovciii 
ment  held  itself  entitled,  before  seizing  the  Alabama  or  any  other 
vessel,  to  have  such  evidence  in  its  possession,  or  to  have  reasonable 
.grounds  for  believing  that  it  would  be  forthcoming  before  the  trial  ot 
the  case  should  begin.  Open  investigation  before  a  court  is  the  moan- 
appointed  by  law  for  sifting  all  accusations  and  distinguishing  asoti 
tainable  facts  from  mere  rumor;  it  is  an  ordeal  that  a  British  govern 
ment  which,  in  the  exercise  of  the  powers  intrusted  to  it,  seizes  or  in- 
terferes with  the  person  or  property  of  any  one  within  its  jurisdiction, 
must  always  be  i)repared  to  encounter,  and  it  is  clear  that  the  sufiicicuoy 
of  evidence  in  an  English  forum  can  only  be  tried  by  principles  recoi; 
nized  in  England,  as  in  an  Italian,  Swiss,  IJrazilian,  or  American  forum, 
it  must  of  necessity  be  determined  by  principles  recognized  in  t\m(' 
countries  respectively.  Dut  the  assertions  that  the  British  governmout. 
throughout  the  war,  "  would  originate  nothing  themselves  for  the 
maintenance  and  performance  of  their  international  duties,  and  that 
thej'  Mould  listen  to  no  representations  from  the  otlicials  of  the  Uiiitcil 
States  which  did  not  furnish  technical  evidence  for  a  criminal  prosecu- 
tion,"' are  not  only  unfounded ;  they  are  opposed  to  facts  stated  in  thf 
('ase  and  evidence  of  Great  Britain  and  even  in  the  Case  .and  evidence 
of  the  United  States.  The  arbitrators  have  already  s^en,  from  the 
statements  laid  before  theni,  that  every  reasonable  suspicion,  whether 
communicated  through  the  minister  of  the  United  States  or  derived 
from  other  sources,  was  immediately  made  the  subject  of  inquiry;  that 
this  was  in  some  instances  done  where  no  representation  had  been  re 
ceived  from  ]Mr.  Adams;  and  that  on  every  representation  of  his,  though 
unaccompanied  by  evidence,  it  was  done  as  a  matter  of  counse. 

It  is  true,  nevertheless,  that  in  cases  of  this  nature  neutral  govern 
ments  ordinarily  expect  to  receive  information  from  the  ministers  or 
consuls  of  belligerent  powers  resident  within  their  territories.  These 
officials  have  the  keenest  incitements  to  vigilance  in  their  national 
interest  and  official  duty,  and  are  more  likel.y  to  be  the  first  recipients 
of  intelligence  than  the  government  or  its  officers. 


'  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  v,  pp.  204-211), 


COrXTKR    CASK    OF    GKKAT    BRITAIN'. 


311 


This  lias  been  the  Kei't'i''«J  piacticio  of  iioiitral  jfovonimt'iits,  ainl 
[SJI  tho  arl)itratt)rs  iiave  *alr('a(l,v  soon  that  it  has  boon  tollowod  by  tho 
InitotlStatos.  Tho  (JovornmoMt  of  the  United  States  has  expected 
iiitoniiation  to  be  thus  furnished  to  it,  and  Inis  expected  also  the  in- 
ttnuiiition  to  be  supi)ortod  by  ])roofs;  and  where  the  proof  offered  was 
not  satisfactory,  foroijjfu  ministers  and  consuls  have  been  told  that  they 
ui'ioat  liberty  to  institute  ])rocoedin}?'S  themselves.' 

Let  us  now  briefly  recall  the  facts,  of  which  tlie  arbitrators  are  already 
in  possession,  and  which  show  what  the  conduct  of  tlie  JJritish  (rovern- 
iiiciit  and  its  oflicers  in  relation  to  the  Alabama  really  was. 

Oh  tlie  24tU  June,  18G2,  Karl  Itnssell  received  the  first  representation 
iiuule  to  him  respectinjf  the  vessel  afterward  calle<l  tho  Alabama,  then 
known  only  by  her  number  in  the  bnilding-yard,  (290.)  In  the  case  of 
the  United  States,  tho  arbitrators  are  told  that  i\Ir.  Adams  had  at  this 

The  aiiHWiH-  of  Mr.  Fisli  to  tln'  .Si»anisli  i-uvoy,  in  December,  1S70,  lias  boeii  aheaily 
nffrml  to  iibovo,  (]».  40.) 

Tho  iiiKU'rsijrncd  takes  the  liberty  to  call  the  attention  of  Mr.  Lopez  Roberts  to  tho 
lur  that  a  district  attorney  of  the  I'nited  States  is  an  otticer  whose  tlutios  are  regii- 
iittilliy  law,  and  wiio,  in  the  absence  of  execntivo  warrant,  has  no  rijjht  to  detain  the 
viSM'ls  of  American  citizens  withont  legal  jirocess,  fonndiMl  not  npon  surmises,  or  upon 
lilt  antecedent  character  of  a  vessel,  or  upon  the  belief  or  conviction  of  a  consul,  but 
ipcin  proof  sul)niitted  according  to  tlic  forms  reiiuired  by  law." 

Tlu'ie  are  several  examples  of  this  in  the  correspondenct!  of  the  (lovernment  of  the 
I  iiiti'd  States  with  Spain  and  i'ortiigal.     (Appendix,  vol.  iii,  p.  I).").) 

The  following  letters,  exciianged  between  tins  Spanish  consnl  at  New  Voik  and  the, 
I  iiifcd  States  district  attorney  in  IHIT,  atVord  a  convenient  instance.     ( Ibid.,  p.  111).) 

Mr.  Sloiif/hlon  to  Mr.  Fish: 

"CoNSII.ATK   <>l"    Sl'AlN, 

"A'tic  York,  Scptvmbrr  Ki,  I.-'IT. 

Sik:  Sook!  days  ago  tln-re  arrived  in  the  port  of  Xew  York  an  armed  brig,  i)rocpeding 
'Mil  Norfolk,  winch  I  have  been  very  crtsdibly  informed  is  a  vess(d  pretending  to  have 
I  commission  from  Yene/nela,  but  whoso  object  in  coming  into  this  port  was  to  pro- 
iireaii  aridit''  nal  snpjdy  of  men  wherewith  to  commit  hostilities  against  tho  subjects 
iiid  possessions  of  tiio  King  of  Spain.  A  few  days  ago  I  )>resented  to  tiie  collector  of 
ilH'portof  New  York  an  alHdavit  of  a  man  named  .Jolm  Reilley,  stating  that  he  had 
lierii  re(|uested  to  enlist  on  board  of  a  vessel,  which  was  represented  to  him  to  bo  tho 
I'livateer  scliooner  Livi^ly,  bound  to  Amelia  Island  to  join  General  McGregor,  to  invadi! 
:lii- territories  of  his  Catliolic  Majesty. 

I  am  now  informed  tiiat  the  l)rig  above  mentioned  is  the  vessel  alluded  to,  Reilley 
iiiving  cith«H'  been  mistaken  in  the  name  or  designedly  deceived  by  the  agents  of  tho 
liivateer.  I  now  inclose  tlie  iiHidavit  of  ,Iohn  Finegan,  by  which  you  will  jjerceivo 
that  tlie  odicers  of«the  above  brig  (whose  name  is  the  American  Libre,  co  umauded  by 
'  iiptaiu  liarnard)  are  enlisting,  and  have  enlisted,  men  in  this  port  to  proceed  against 
ilio  Spanish  possessions.  I  have  caused  application  to  be  madf  to  the  collector,  who 
il'nibts  the  extent  of  his  authority  in  interfering  with  tiiis  vessel.  Nov, ,  as  there  must 
W  provisions  in  tho  laws  and  treaiies  of  tho  ITnitcd  States  vesting  an  authority  in. 
Millie  of  its  oHicers  to  jirevent  the  eciuipment  of  vessels  and  tho  enlistment  of  nu'u  in 
ilie  United  States,  to  proceed  against  a  foreign  nation  at  peace  with  the  United  States, 
Imake  this  application  to  you,  most  urgently  reiim^sting  you  to  take  whatever  measures 
May  bo  necessary  immediately,  in  order  to  prevent  tlie  dei»arture  of  tho  above  vess'-!,  u! 
least  until  she  siiall  give  bonds  that  she  will  not  commit  hostilities  against  Sp  lisb 
subjects.    The  vessel,  it  is  said,  will  sail  to-morrow  morning. 

Tmleod,  if  an  intpiiry  were  instituted,  I  am  induced  to  believe  the  above  brig  will 
'"•found  to  be  a  pirare. 
"1  have,  &c., 
(Signed)  "THOMAS  STOl'GHTON.' 

AffidarU  of  John  Fiiiegan. 

"Ski'TEMuku  If),  If^lT. 

"8tatk  oi-  Nkw  Yuuk,  8«: 

■John  Finegau,  at  present  iu  the  city  of  New  York,  being  duly  sworn,  saitli  that  ho 

I«\i8  reipiested  by  a  man,  who  is  represented  to  be  the  commissary  of  the  vessel  next 

WDtioued,  to  go  out  in  the  Patriot,  brig,  now  lying  at  the  ([uarantine  ground;  that  tho 

jfetinatiou  of  the  said  vessel  is  to  tight  against  the  Spaniards;  that  the  deponent  was 

told  that  on  his  arrival  iu  Spanish  possessions  he  was  to  join  the  land  service  of  the 


'^  }■ 

.1''    ■■■■ 

'•■■:  - 

M-v^'' 


W  r 


Ml  i    - 

iil  i  ii  'I 


t 

I 


312 


TREATY    OF    WASIfIN(;TOX. 


time  good  reason  "lo  think  that  it  wouhl  bo  necessary  to  obtain  strictly 
technical  proof  of  a  violation  of  the  ninnicipal  law  of  Kngland  befoiv 
he  could  hope  to  obtain  the  detention'' of  the  ship,  and  that  '•hotlion{;lit 
lie  hsid  such  proof."  ^Nlr.  Adams  did  not,  however,  in  his  letter  runiish 
<tr  otter  any  proof  at  all,  and  the  inclosed  letter  from  Mr.  Dudley  tdi,. 
tained  nothing  showing  or  tending  to  show  the  purpose  for  wliidi 
|8;{]  the  •vessel  was  intended,  beyond  some  hearsay  statements,  iv. 
ported  to  come  frou)  persons  who  could  not  be  compelled  to  };i\(. 
evidence,  and  an  expression  of  iiis  own  opinion  that  "there  was  iiot"thc 
least  room  for  doubt  about  it.'' 

On  the  L'.'ith  June  Her  Majesty's  government  ordered  in«|uiry  to  he 
nuide  on  the  spot.  At  the  same  time  the  two  letters  were  laid  bcloiv 
tlie  law-otlicers  of  the  Crown.    The  latter  reported — 

Tliat  if  thf  rfpn'scntatioii  iii.idr  to  Ifer  MiiJt'sty'H  govoniintMit  by  Mr.  Adams  i>  in 
jictordunco  witli  tin;  facts,  the  buihliiiir  uiul  L'<[iiipinuiit  of  the  Mteaiiior  in  <|iicsti<m  i>  :i 

jiatriots;  tliat  (k'i»on<'iit  knows  of  (ivo  persons  who  have  been  cnfiaj^iMl  in  lil<i'  niiimur, 

who  arc  about  to  incnocd  on  board  tlie  said  l)ri};;  that  (b'i>oni'nt  was  tohl  tliut  as  > 

as  lie  neta  on  board  lie  will  n-ccivo  his  advance  ;  that  olliccrs  are  at  present  eniplnynl 
in  the  city  of  New  York  in  lookinj^ont  for  men,  aM<l  endeavoring  to  enlist  them  tn  ih.i. 
cced  in  the  said  vessel. 

(Signed)  "JOHN  +  FINEGAN 


.Sworn  this  lOth  day  «>f  .September,  1817,  before  me. 

Mr.  Stovyhtoti  to  Mr.  Fink. 


iiinrk, 
"SAMUKL  ]?.  HOMAINK. 


"  CONSII.ATK    0|-    Sl'AIN. 

"  yeic  )'urk,  Septemhtr  17, 1'l?. 

".Siis:  1  inclose  the  deposition  of  .John  Keilley,  relating  to  the  privat<!er  brig, 
■which  I  yesterday  had  the  honor  to  address  yon.     Yon  will  i)ereeivo  by  the  a 
that  oflicers  belonging  to  that  brig  are  openly  employed  in  this  city  in  recruiti 
enlisting  men  to  join  with  General  McGregor,  and  invade  the  possessions  of  tho  iviii^' 
of  Spain. 

"  I  need  not  remind  yon  that,  by  the  existing  laws  of  the  United  States,  these  cnli>i- 
inents  are  unlawful,  and  that  not  only  tho  vessel  on  board  of  which  they  are  to  cinbiuk 
is  liable  to  eeizure  an»l  forfeiture,  but  that  the  ca])tain  and  the  officers  thereof,  who  aiv 
(Migaged  in  this  business,  are  lialdo  to  a  heavy  fine  and  iiuprisonnient.  As  these  an- 
tiagrant  violations  of  the  laws  of  the  Uuittul  States,  and  calculated  to  proiluce  scricui^ 
injury  to  the  possessions  of  His  Majesty,  and  to  the  property  of  his  subjects,  I  liattri 
myself  that  you  will  take,  without  delay,  such  steps  as  may  be  necessary  to  imt  a  stnp 
to  these  proceedings. 
"I  have,  A. c, 
(.Signed)  "THOMAS  STOIGHTON. 

DvpoHitioii  of  John  lUUhij, 

"  .SKPTK-MItKIt  9,  I^IT. 

'  SlATK   OF   NKW   YuIiK,   »S,  ClTV   OV  NeW   YOKK,  H8  : 

"John  Keilley,  at  present  in  the  city  of  New  York,  mariner,  being  duly  sworn,  saitli. 
that  some  days  ago  d'.'ponent  was  re(j nested  to  embark  on  board  of  a  vessel  which  was 
said  to  be  lying  at  the  Narrows,  in  the  Bay  of  New  York,  for  the  purpose  of  going  m 
join  General  McGregor,  and  to  fight  against  the  Spaniards ;  that  after  he  arrived  al 
Amelia  Island  he  might  either  join  the  land  service  or  the  naval  service ;  that  depo- 
nent would  be  paid  as  soon  as  he  got  on  board  ;  that  several  persons  were  eiig.aged  in 
looking  out  for  recruits  to  proceed  upon  the  same  service,  and  many  men  were  spoken 
t(»  for  the  purpose.  Depoueiit  was  then  informed  that  the  vessel  was  the  jirivateii 
schooner  Lively,  but  has  since  learned  that  it  was  a  mistake,  and  that  the  vessel  in 
([uestion  is  the  i)atriot  brig  Americano  Libre,  Captain  Barnard,  which  is  lying  at  thi 
«iuarantine  ground,  and  is  armed  with  several  large  guns  and  many  nu^n ;  that  several 
persons  who  are  officers,  captains,  lieutenants,  and  so  forth,  are  at  present  employed  in 
recruiting  men  to  join  tliat  service,  and  proceed  in  the  said  brig  to  Amelia :  that  mauy 
hands  have  already  been  bespoken,  and  are  now  waiting  for  money  which  has  Ijeeii 
promised  to  them ;  that  the  offers  made  to  them  are  to  give  them  $8  a  mouth  and  elotb- 
ing,  together  with  |!10  or  ^12  in  advance.  Deponent  supposes  that  the  otficcrs  above 
mentioned  were  in  treaty  with  about  twenty  persons,  who  w.re  to  go  on  board  as  soon 
as  their  advance  was  paid  to  them,  and  which  the  said  orticers  told  them  would  be 


^^mmf^^ 


COUNTER    CASK    OF    (iltKAT    BRITAIN. 


313 


y  sworn,  >aitli. 
(isi'l  which  \v;is 
ose.  of  ^joins '" 
he  iirrived  at 
ce ;  that  depn- 

erc  eiisag»'''l  '" 
_ii  wuiT  spokfii 
s  the  iiiivatetr 
t  the  vessel  in 
is  hill};  at  tbi 
that  several 

lit  eiiiployi'il '" 
lia;  thatniauy 
vhich  has  been 
oiith  andilotb- 
otticcrs  above 
_.  board  as  soou 
them  would  be 


!iiaiiifi'«t  viohitioii  of  the  foreijrii-ciiliHtiiiont  aet,  and  Htrps  ought  to  he  lukni  to  put 
tliiitntt  ill  foree  and  to  prevent  the  veNsel  from  going  to  w-a. 

Tlio  I'i'port  of  th(!  I'nited  States  eon«nl  at  Liverpool,  iiulosed  l)y  Mr.  Ailains,  liesidcs 
,ii(jgo»tiiig  other  gronndH  of  n^asonabhi  siispirioii,  contains  a  direct  asMMtioii  that  the 
mrcmaii  of  Mchhi'm.  I^aird,  the  hiiihh'rH.  lias  stated  tliat  tiiis  vessei  is  intended  as  a  jiri- 
vateerfor  the  service  of  the  governiiient  of  the  Southern  States;  and,  if  (he  cliaractei 
if tlio  vessel  and  of  her  ecinipnient  he  such  as  tho  same  report  descrilits  lUeiii  to  lie.  it 
-(('iim  evident  tiiat  she  niiist  be  intended  for  some  warlike  purpose. 

I'lulcr  these  circiinistanees,  we  tidnk  that  iiropcr  steps  ought  to  be  taken,  under  tht 
•lirectiou  of  Her  Majesty's  government,  by  the.  authorities  <d'  tlie  eiistonis  at 
'•I]    Liverpo(d,  toasitertain  tht;  truth,  and  'that,  if  suDieient  evidence  can  be  obtained 
to  justify  i>roceedings  under  tin;  fonMgn-eiilistiuent  aet,  such  proceedings  sliould 
1,1  taken  as  early  as  i»ossil)!e.     In  the  mean  time  Mr.  Adams  ought,  we  tiiink,  to  be 
iifniiiu'il  that  Her  Majesty's  government  are  ])idceeding  to  investigate  the  case  ;  but 
imt  the  course  which  they  may  eventually  take  must  necessarily  depend  upon  the 
latiirt!  and  suthcieney  of  any  evidence  of  a  breach  of  the  law  which  they  may  be  en- 
.ilik'd  to  obtain  ;  and  that  it  will  be  desirable  tliiit  any  evidence  in  the  jiossession  of 
ilic United  States  consul  at  Liverjiool  should  be  at  once  eoininunii  ated  to  the  ot1l(er> 
lller  Majesty's  customs  at  that  port.' 

On  the  4tli  July  the  results  of  the  inquiry  in.stitutod  iit  Livi'ri>ool  by 
ilie  customs  department  were  communicated  to  jNlr.  Adams,  with  a  suj;- 


liiriujjthe  course  of  the  day  ;  among  the  olHcors  there  is  one  who  is  trailed  a  general. 
That  the  above  men  were  told,  in  deponent's  presence,  by  the  ollicers  who  were  eiili.-t- 
iiU  tlicin,  that  they  were  principally  wanted  to  join  the  land  stnvice  against  the  roy.il 
«tH,    And  further  the  deponent  saith  lutt. 

(Signed)  ".JOHN  HKH.LKV. 

"Sworn  this  Ulth  day  of  September,  before  me. 

"  FRANCIS  R.  TILLON, 

^'yotary  riiblic" 
Mr.  Fixl-  to  Mr.  Shiu/hlon. 

"Nkw  Y(i:,k,  Srpfimher  17,  1-17. 

•Silt:  I  have  duly  received  your  notes  of  yesterday  evening  and  of  this  day,  and 
!;ave  referred  to  the  statutes  providing  for  the  punishment  of  the  otfenses  stated.  It 
snot  a  case,  from  tho  evidence  mentioned,  that  would  justify  the  collector  in  detaili- 
ng the  vessel ;  the  aggression  is  to  he  punished  in  the  ordinary  mode  of  prosecuting 
:hoso  who  are  guilty  of  mi.sdemcanors.  Oath  is  to  be  made  of  the  facts  by  the  eoiu- 
lilainaiit,  who  enters  into  a  recognizance  to  apptsar  and  prosecute  the  «)fienders  before 
my  process  can  issue.  This  oatli  being  made,  and  recogni/ance  taken,  the  judge  of  the 
ircuit  court  will  issue  a  warrant  to  apjireheud  tho  accused,  and  bring  them  before 
liini,  to  be  further  dealt  with  according  to  law.  When  apprehended,  it  is  the  province 
><(  tho  attorney  of  tho  United  States  to  conduct  the  prosecution  to  judgment.  I  have 
no  authority  to  administer  an  oath,  or  to  issue  a  warrant,  nor  have  1  the  power  to  issue 
any  process  to  arrest  and  detain  the  vessel  in  (|uestion,  unless  by  the  direction  of  an 
executive  otticer  of  the  United  States.  IJy  the  refei'euce  you  have  furnished,  the  parties 
iiuiplained  of  are  to  be  prosecuted  either  under  the  4th  section  of  the  act  of  Congress 
passed  on  tho  :Jd  of  March,  1817,  or  under  the  5Jd  section  of  the  act  passed  5tli  .Juue. 
1*'J4.  By  adverting  to  these  statutes,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Acssel  is  not  liable  to 
seizure  for  the  act  of  any  person  enlisting  himself  to  go  on  board,  or  tor  hiring  or  retain- 
ing another  person  to  en  list;  the  punishment  is  jiersonal  to  theotVenders;  ami  those  who 
ilisclose  the  fact,  on  oath,  within  thirty  diivs  after  enlisting,  are  protected  from  prose- 
ntiou.  The  otfenders  are  to  be  arrested  and  prosecuted  in  the  inauner  I  have  statetl. 
1  beg  jou  to  be  assured,  sir,  that  it  is  not  from  a  disposition  either  to  shrink  from  the 
I'erformauce  of  my  duty,  or  to  decline  interfering  to  defeat  any  illegal  enterprise  against 
lie  subjects  or  possessions  of  a  power  with  whom  the  United  States  are  at  peace,  that 
Iliave  stated  to  you  the  embarrassments  I  must  eiiconiiter  in  attempting  v  compliance 
vith  your  request  upon  any  informatiou  with  which  I  am  furnished.  If  it  is  in 
yiiiir  power  to  procure  the  names  of  the  parties,  and  the  evidence  upon  which  a  jirosc- 
iiitiou  for  a  misdemeanor  can  bo  founded,  I  will  readily  co-operate  with  the  propei- 
^luthorities  in  having  every  oft'ender  arrested  and  brought  to  justice.  It  is  impracticable 
I'lr  nie,  or  any  other  officer  of  the  United  States,  to  take  any  legal  measures  against 
;i|,'Kressor8,  upon  the  indetinite  statement  of  certain  persons  being  concerned  in  an  ille- 
niil  transaction.  Since  the  receipt  of  your  notes,  I  have  had  an  interview  with  tho  eol- 
'MiiT,  and  we  are  unable  to  discover  any  other  legal  course  of  proceeding  in  this  case 
'lian  that  adopted  in  the  ordin.ary  cases  of  misdemeanors. 

"I  have,  &c., 

(Signed)  *•  .JONATHAN  FISK." 

^  The  Spanish  consul  rejoined  by  a  warm  remonstrance.    The  expedition  appears  to 
aavo  been  permitted  to  sail  unmolested. 
'  British  Case,  p.  83 ;  Appendix,  vol.  1,  p.  181. 


ill 


i'    ..   ^4, 


!'>    { 


j; 


T^ 


w 


314 


TREATY    OF    WA.SIIIXGTOX. 


.:Lj;e.sti()U  tliat  be  slioukl  instruct  "  the  United  States  consul  ;jt  Liverpoo! 
to  submit  to  tlio  collector  of  customs  at  that  port  such  evidence  as  h' 
may  possess  tending  to  show  that  his  suspicions  as  to  the  destination 
of  the  vessel  in  question  are  well  founded."  ' 

If  ]\Ir.  Adams,  or  the  consul  from  whom  he  derived  his  inforniation, 
was  at  this  time  possessed  of  evidence  as  to  the  intended  employineiit 
and  real  character  of  the  ship,  the  time  had  now  arrived  when  it  ought 
to  have  been  inoduced  without  delay. 

Five  days  afterward,  on  the  !lth  July,  the  consul  wrote  a  lettei',  received 
on  the  10th,  which  purported  to  convey  "  all  the  information  and  cii 
cumstanees  which  had  come  to  his  knowledfte  "  to  the  collector  of  ciis 
toms."  The  contents  of  this  letter,  when  examined,  will  be  Ibuiul  tu 
consist  partly  of  one  or  two  alleged  tacts,  (not  i)roved,)  tending  to  con 
neci  Jiullock  with  the  vessel ;  partly  of  statements  or  admissions  said 
ro  have  been  made  by  various  persons  to  third  parties,  and  to  have  been 
by  them  reported  to  the  consul.  The  persons  to  whom  these  statements 
or  admissions  were  ascribed  were  two  otticers  of  the  Sumter,  who  had 
passed  through  Liverpool  two  mouths  before ;  a  foreman  then  or  previ 
ously  employed  in  the  ship-builders'  ytard,  and  not  designated  by  name: 
and  "  a  youth  named  IJobinson,"  who  was  understood  to  be  at  '*  a  school 
in  London.''  ^Ir.  Dudley  bad  not  himself  seen  any  of  these  junsons ; 
he  had  only  beard  from  others  (whose  names  he  said  he  could  not  disclose 
that  they  had  made  the  statements  or  admissions  attributed  to  them, 
His  inforniation,  therefore,  consisted  in  reality  of  reports,  received  from 
anonymous  persons,  of  statements  alleged  to  have  been  made  by  others 
who  could  not  be  found,  or  who,  if  found,  could  not  have  been  compelled 
lo  give  evidence,  since  the  evidence  would  have  tended  to  criminate 
themscl  ves.  ( )f  Bullock  nothing  was  at  this  time  known  to  Iler  ^[ajesty  :< 
government,  and  the  consul,  although  he  asserte<l  that  Bullock  was  a 
confederate  otlicer  sent  over  to  England  for  a  particular  puri>ose,  fur 
uisbed  no  evidence  of  this,  nor  offered  to  furnish  any. 

INIr.  Dudley  was  therefore  informed  by  the  collector  that  tlie  ollicer- 
of  the  revenue  would  not  be  justified  in  acting  on  the  statenu'uts  con 
tained  in  his  letter,  uidess  they  could  be  substantiated  by  evidence. 

On  the  21st  July,  eleven  days  after  the  collector's  reply,  and  a  moiitli 
after  the  time  A»hen  (as  is  alleged)  ]\Ir.  Adams  thought  be  bail  in  his 
possession  "  strictly  technical  proof"  of  a  Aiolation  of  the  law,  .somr 
evidence  was  i>roduced  for  the  first  time,  and  laid  before  the  collector 
by  the  consul,  i'his  evidence  consisted  of  six  «le])ositions,  of  which 
only  one,  purpiuting  to  be  sworn  by  a  man  named  Tassmore,  was  ma 
terial  to  the  question,  and  legally  admissible.'  It  has  already  been  ob- 
served that,  to  rely  on  evidence  of  this  kind,  iiroceeding  from  a  sinulf 
witness,  without  corroboration,  and  without  inquiry  into  bis  character 
and  general  credibility,  would,  according  to  Judicial  exj)erienco  in  Enji 
land,  (and,  it  may  be  added,  in  the  United  States  likewise,  and  proba 
bly  in  other  countries,)  have  been  very  unsafe  in  a  case  of  this  nature.' 

The  consul  was,  however,  informed  that  it  was  competent  for  him,  il 
he  should  think  fit,  to  institute  at  his  own  risk  a  prosecution  againsr 
the  persons  supposetl  to  be  concerned  in  the  alleged  violation  ofthf 
law.-' 


'  Hiitisli  CiiHc,  |tii|!;e  H4 ;  A|tpen(lix,  vol.  i,  i>.  IH4. 
-  AppiMulix  to  Case  ot'tln'  IJiiitud  States,  vol.  iii,  p,  17 
■  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  ]».  21 ;  vol.  vi,  p.  [VJl. 
<  Kiitish  Cas.',  p.  yi. 
Appendix  to  CuHti  of  tlio  United  States,  vol.  iii,  p.  Sil 


vol.  vi,  p.  '^K^. 


vo).   vi,  p.  ;{'.)(!.     Kcfciriii' 


.-lll[F1-|Mtl.'V     H»    V^ilHU    KH       I'lIU     tJlllbtJIl      OLULVn,     *  IJI.       Ill,     |l.       «1    ,       ".III,       >  I,    p,    .li"P.  nii»i*"- 

h.a.s  iilrrady  boon  iiiadu  above  (p.  82)  to  the  auswer.s  jf'^'""  ''*  '*  likoseiiHi)  by  Mr.  Fi<li, 
to  the  Spaiiiuli  iiiinister  in  December,  1870,  and  by  Mr.  Tisk  to  the  SpanLth  eousiil  i!' 
1S17. 


!|(f'"^,.    ,,„,.f-T^^v 


COUNTER   CASK    OK    GKKAT    nRITAIX. 


315 


(8:.j 


*Iii  the  Case  of  tlie  United  States  the  arbitrators  are  told  that 
the  depositions  submitted  on  the  2lst  were  "conclusively  passed 
,111011 "  l>.v  Her  Majesty's  jiovernnient.'  This  is  a  misapprehension,  if  it 
is  uioant  that  they  were  accepted  by  the  jjoverninent  as  conclusive. 
Wliiit  the  government  accepted  as  sunicient  was  not  the  incomplete  and 
xaiity  evidence  of  tlie  21st,  l)nt  the  same  evidence,  strenj^thened  aud 
niiupleted  by  the  additional  dei)ositions  of  the  L*3d  and  25th. 

On  the  2.')d  July  two  further  dei)ositions  were  fiUiiished  by  the 
iioiud  of  customs.-  An  additional  deposition  was  re<'eived  on  the  25th 
July.'  On  Tuesday,  the  21>tli  .Inly,  the  law  otticcrs  reported  their 
iipiiiion  that  the  evidence  was  sutlicient,  and  tliat  the  vessel  ought  to 
he  seized.^  This  opinion  was  unfortunately  given  too  late,  the  vessel 
liiiving  put  to  sea  on  the  same  morninfi,  under  the  circumstances  stated 
111  the  British  Case.' 

We  see,  then,  that  although,  according  to  the  statements  .nade  in  the 
I  use  of  the  United  States,  this  vessel  had  been  an  object  of  susi)icion  an<l 
Mintiny  to  the  consul  ever  since  November,  1801,  although  he  had  for 
imiiths  believed  that  she  was  intended  for  the  confederate  government ; 
akhoiigh  she  had  been,  as  is  alleged,  the  subject  of  constant  correspond- 
iiice  with  his  olticial  superior  and  with  ]\Ir.  Adams;  although  she  had, 
within  his  knowledge,  been  gradually  advancing  to  ctunpletion,  had 
iiiiule  her  trial-trip,  and  was  beginning  to  get  ready  for  sea:  and 
although  Mr.  Adanis  knew  that  evidence  such  as  could  be  produced  in 
a  court  of  law,  not  only  of  her  adai)tation  for  war,  but  of  her  being  in- 
lemled  to  be  emplo, eu  in  hostilities  against  the  United  States,  was 
i('(|iiired  to  Justify  a  si'izure:  notwithstanding  all  this,  no  evidence 
whatever  i)roving  or  tending  to  prove  such  an  intention  was  ])roduced 
In  the  liritish  government  or  its  subordinate  oHicials  till  the  21st  of 
Inly,  eight  days  betbre  the  vessel  sailed,  and  at  a  time  when  it  was 
it'iunted  that  she  migii'  leave  at  any  hour;  and  what  was  then  fur- 
;ii>!it'(l  re<|uire«l  to  be  -lengthened  by  additional  evidence,  ])art  of 
which  was  delivered  on  tlic  sixth  and  the  remainder  on  the  fourth  «lay 
iit'lbie  her  «leparture.  It  is  clear  beyond  controversy  that  this  long  and 
liii/ardous  dc!a>  on  the  ])art  of  the  olbcials  of  the  United  States  in  this 
(ouiitry  must  have  been  due  to  «)ne  of  two  causes — cither  to  a  want  of  <lu<^ 
ilili^fence  in  procuring  the  cvideuct'  necessary  to  verify  the  suspicions 
which  they  entertained, 'or  to  their  inability  to  j)rocure  it.  Thi^  second 
It  these  exjilanations,  which  is  conlirmed  by  ]\lr.  J)udley"s  comi)hiints 
"t  :lu' dilliculty  experienced  in  inducing  any  witness  to  come  forward, 
>  probably  the  correct  oiu',  lUit,  in  either  case,  what  becomes  of  the 
(liiii'^ic  of  gross  and  culpable  negligence  against  tlie  JJritish  govern- 
ii'iit.'  If  .Mr.  Dudley,  whose  !)usiness  it  was  to  lind  out  the  truth  of  a 
Mispeeted  enterprise  so  dangerous  to  his  country,  (!ould  get  no  evidence 
<'t  it  until  too  late,  why  is  it  imputed  as  gross  negligence  to  the  <••  'cers 
"t  the  government  that  they,  without  his  means  of  information,  w«'ie  not 

Al>p«Mj(lix  to  UritiNli  Case.  vol.  i.  ]>.  VM. 


liil 
'll.i.l. 


lilf'. 
1>.  iiOU. 


■*  mil!  stK'.SH  ijt  laid,  in  the  ( 'iiso  (»f  the  fiiited  .Stiitcs,  (pp.  :{(is,  :t74,)  on  ii  .stateinciit  in 

I"iit  Uy  the  <  oMimissioner  of  cu.stonis  to  the  tifamiry,  that  th<^  mvonuc  otliiMTs  at 

[-ivir|>(i((l  Hhouhl  "  watch"  tli»3  whip.     This  is  eonstincil  into  a  luoniisc  to  Mr.  AdainH 

'  nisclt'  that  she  shouhl  1)«  watclicil  to  pruvont  hor  dopaitiirc;  and  lie  is  saiil  to  havo 

'''<1  iipon  it,  iiiid  to  have  \kva\  indignant  wlion  theanthoritics  "tailed  to  rcdoonithoir 

'li:'itiir\  promise."     Mr.  A<hnn.s,  however,  knt  w  well  that,  although  the  ship  might 

wiilehed"  by  the  otlieers  to  ascertain  whetlier  she  took  iunis  on  l»r>ard.  (tho  con- 

UnIiows  that  this  was  meant,)  nothing  bnt  an  actnal  sei/tire  eon  Id  legally  prevent 


T  tioiii  sail 


mg. 


^^  dm' 


I'i;"' 


:<!!■ 


i      ,  ^      ? 


■•k  i^jj 


■it; 


r;. 


310 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


more  successful  ?  If  he  could,  wli^-  is  tlu»  penalty  of  his  negligeiioe  to  be 
paid  bj-  the  British  nation  ? 

Up  to  this  point,  then,  it  is  clear  that  there  is  no  reasonable  ^jrouiid 
for  the  charf?es  brought  by  the  United  States  against  (Ireat  ]>ritaiii.  if 
those  charges  are  to  be  supported  in  any  way,  they  must  find  their  only 
support  in  what  was  done,  or  omitted  to  be  done,  afterward.  That  tin- 
question  whether  the  evidence  was  credible  and  sutlicient  to  sustain  a 
seizure,  was  one  on  which  the  British  government  liad  a  right,  heforc 
acting,  to  consult  its  ofticial  legal  advisers,  cannot  be  denied.  It  was 
clearly  and  eminently  such  a  question.  Nor  does  it  admit  of  denial  that 
the  evidence  was  actually  referred,  as  soon  as  it  was  received  from  tiiiii- 
to  time,  by  the  government  to  its  advisers,  for  their  opinion  :  nor  tliar, 
if  any  reasonable  doubt  existed,  the  government  and  its  advisers  weiv 
Justified  in  taki.ig  reasonable  time  for  consideration. 

The  charge  of  gross  negligence,  then,  resolves  itself,  when  tested  by 
examination,  into  this  and  no  more  :  that  the  evidence  not  hiniiig  l)eeii 
delivered  till  within  a  few  days  of  the  sailing  of  the  ship,  and  then  in 
successive  installments  sent  almost  from  day  to  day,  a  little  more  time 
than  may  now  perhaps  be  thought  to  have  been  absolutely  necessary 
was  consumed  in  obtaining  the  advice  and  forming  the  conclusion  on 
which  the  government  ultimately  acted. 

A  circumstance  has  been  already  mentioned,  of  which  ^\\\  Adams  was 
informed  at  the  time,  as  having  occasioned  some  little  delay.' 
[80]  Nor  ought  it  to  be  forgotten  tliat  the  sole  *facts  which  were 
alleged,  and  as  to  which  evidence  was  ottered,  and  for  prevent- 
ing which  ller  Majesty's  government  was  solicited  to  interfere,  were  the 
fitting  out  for  sea  in  the  neutral  port  of  a  vessel  specially  adapted  by  her 
construction  for  Avar,  and  built  as  a  commercial  trans.action  to  the  order 
of  an  agent  of  a  belligerent,  and  her  apjuehended  departure,  unaruieil, 
for  an  unknown  destination,  which  might  be  a  port  of  the  Confederate 
States.  Of  arrangements  for  arming  her  nothing  was  known  to  the 
orticials  of  the  United  States,  and  nothing  was  brought  to  the  kiiowl 
edge  of  Her  Msijesty's  governujent;  and  they  are  now  informed  bv  her 
builders,  Messrs.  Laird,  (who  would,  if  necessarj',  give  evidence  to  that 
ettect  before  the  arbitrators,)  that  they  also  were  entirely  ignorant  ot 
those  arrangements,  and  that  they  believe •  the  vessel  to  be  intended  tu 
run  the  blo(dvade.  In  the  opinion  of  the  government  and  its  advisers. 
the  adaptation  of  this  ves.sel  for  war,  with  a  view  to  her  eniploymont  in 
the  service  of  the  Confe«lerate  States,  would,  if  proved,  have  been  a 
breach  of  the  foreign-enlistment  act ;  but  this  was  not  established  by 
authority ;  it  was  a  point  on  which  high  legal  opinions  were  known  t" 
dirter;  and  it  was  the  more  necessary  that  the  evidence  should  be  ehar. 

AVMien  the  matter  is  reduced  to  this  point,  we  see  that  it  is  one  npitii 
which  an  adverse  judgment  cimnot  reasonably  be  founded  by  a  couit 
of  international  arbitration.  Whether  the  evi<lence  furnished  was  sulii 
cient;  at  what  time  it  became  .sutlicient,  (taking  into  account  the  priii 
ciples  of  English  law,  by  which  the  government  and  its  advisers  wen' 
bound;)  and  whether  the  conclusion  at  which  the  government  arrived 
was  or  was  not  deferred  a  little  too  long  by  a  reasonable  doubt  or  nn 
accidental  delay,  are  questions  as  to  which  such  a  court  might,  \>n- 
haps,  fnid  it  not  easy  to  form  a  clear  and  decisive  opinion.  The  IJritish 
government  conceives,  liowever,  that  it  is  not  upon  grounds  smh  as 
these  that  a  grave  charge  of  neglect  of  international  duty  ought,  when 
iiiised,  to  be  decided.    The  standard  of  international  obligation  whiehj 

'  The  illnosH  of'tlie  t^ucon's  fidvocato  ;  Hi'iti«h  Cuhc,  p.  IIS. 


T'SWip^iP 


COUNTER   CASE    Or    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


317 


a  tlecision  adverse  to  Great  Britain  ou  such  grounds  would  assume,  has 
never  heretofore  been  applied  to  or  acknowledged  by  any  government; 
and  it  needs  no  argument  to  show  that  the  establisliraeut  of  it  would  be 
a  matter  of  serious  couseciueuce,  not  to  maritime  States  alone,  but  to  the 
I'eueral  peace  and  tran<iuillity  of  nations. 

'  The  same  observations  apply  with  still  greater  force  to  the  complaints 
made  by  the  United  States  of  some  petty  mistake  which  possibly 
may  have  been  umde,  or  some  small  defect  of  promptitude  in  decision  or 
action  which  may  possibly  have  been  exhibited  by  subordinate  ofticers 
at  Liverpool  after  the  departure  of  the  vessel.  At  no  tinu'*  after  she 
oailed  was  there  more  than  a  bare  possibility  that  by  the  utmost 
promptitude,  aided  by  good  fortune,  she  might  have  been  sei..ed  while 
in  British  waters.  It  appears  incredible  that  the  United  States  should 
meaij  seriously  to  contend  that,  because  a  subordinate  revenue  otticer 
hesitates  when  in  doubt  to  assume  a  responsibility,  or  writes  to  Ins 
superior  by  post  instead  of  communicating  by  telegrai)h,  a  grave  inter- 
national injury  has  been  ])erpetrated  and  liabilities  incurred  such  as 
ihey  now  seek  to  establish.  It  is  evident  that,  on  such  complaints, 
were  they  fit  to  be  entertained,  no  just  conclusion  could  be  formed  with- 
out a  minute  knowledge  of  the  attendant  circumstance.?,  such  as  is  now 
iiupossible  to  the  arbitrators,  and  unattainable  even  by  Iler  Majesty's 
■overument.  How  little  sui)port  is  to  be  found  in  the  history  of  the 
t  nited  States  themselves  for  the  ai)plication  of  so  rigorous  a  standard 
liasheen  sufficiently  shown  in  an  earlier  portion  of  this  Counter  Case. 
Indeed,  we  need  not  go  beyond  the  facts  immediately  before  us.  Is  the 
(iovernuuMit  of  the  United  States  willing  to  be  charged  with  gross  negli- 
j;eiice  on  the  ground  that  the  captain  of  the  Tuscarora  was  lying  idle  at 
.Southampton  or  sailing  in  St.  (Jeorge's  Channel  when  he  ought  to  have 
lieeii  ott"  the  Mersey  ? 

Her  Majesty's  government  forbear,  therefore,  to  detain  the  arbi- 
trators by  an  examination  of  the  minor  inaccuracies  whicii  occur  in  this 
part  of  the  Case,  and  will  refer  to  only  one  or  two  of  them.  It  is  said 
that  the  collector  knew  on  the«.'iOth  of  an  "admitted  recruitment"  of 
men,  and  that  the  commi.ssioners  of  customs  knew  of  it  on  tli"  foUowing 
day  and  '"took  no  notice"  of  it.^    There  was,  however,  nlmitted 

rccmitiiient,  in  the  sense  of  an  unlawful  enlistment  of  men,  u    tiic  port 
i4'Iiiver[)ool.    There  was  nothing  to  show  that  the  men  were  not  hired 
mr  the  mere  purpose  of  navigating  an  unarmed  vessel ;  and  it  has  siiM-e 
I'lovod  tiiat  they  really  were  so.     No  enlistment  took  place  until  tafter 
;h(!  vessel  reached  the  Azores,  when  some  agreed  to  take  service  and 
Mime  refused.-    If,  therefore,  they  had  be«'n  taken  before  a  magistrate 
it  Liverpool,  they  hiust  have  been  released.     It  is  said  that  the  revenue 
illiiers  at  Liverpool   permitted   the   ship   to    remain    unmolested   in 
r.ritish  waters  during  nearly  two  days,  when  they  were  or  should 
''Tl     have  been  cognizant  of  *it.     Whither  she  had  gone  was,  in  tact, 
<|uite  unknown  until  the  master  of  a  tug-boat  reported  that  she  had 
lien  cruising  off  Point  Lynas,  about  lifty  mih's  from  Liverpool.     It  is 
Mid  tliat  at  the  time  when  this  rejiort  was  received,  the  col'ector  had 
it'ceived  orders  to  stop  the  vessel.     If  this  was  so,  he  luul  ncj  the  means 
't  inniHMliately  stMzing  a  ship  fifty  miles  away,  ott'  the  coast  of  Wales. 
it  IS  said  th.at  her  departure  from  the  Mersey  was  "  hastened  by  the 
Hidt  receipt  of  intelligence  of  the  decision  of  the  government  to  stop 
'Hir."    It  is  difficult  to  understatul  how  this  coidd  have  been  the  case, 
MMce  the  decision  of  the  government  to  atop  her  was  not  formed  till 

C'lwi'  of  the  United  States,  ji.  377. 
•Si'i-  the  lUTiduvit  of  Rudduii,  Appendix  to  Case  of  the  United  States,  vol.  vi,  p.  42^. 


ih 


!    I 


t 


318 


TKKATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


li 


■li.'  ■    J ■    t* ■    *  ■ 


'  '-y'i 


I     'I' 


after  the  report  of  the  Lvw-ollicers,  which  was  only  received  on  the  I'luli; 
and  if  it  had  been  so,  the  JJritisli  government  eouhl  never  hv  helii 
responsible  for  the  treaclicry  of  some  unknown  snbordinate,  who  nmv 
have  become  informed  of  their  decision,  or  may  have  anticipated  that 
it  wonld  be  made. 

ller  ^Majesty's  government  maintains  that  claims  in  respect  ul  tin. 
Alabama  must  be  snpi»orted,  if  at  all,  solely  an<l  entirely  by  acleaih 
ascertained  failure  of  duty,  for  which  the  <?overnment  itself  can  Jiistiv 
be  held  responsible,  and  that  the  failure  of  duty  must  be  such  as  can 
Mith  ])roi)riety  be  made  the  subject  of  a  serious  international  complaint. 

To  found  a  complaint  or  claim,  wholly  or  in  part,  on  the  iisserte;!  fact 
that  a  government  would  not  act  against  persons  oii)roperty  witliiii  its 
dominions  without  "strict  technical  evidence,"  either  means  notliiiii,' or 
means  that  the  rules  which  civilized  states  have  foiiMd  necessary  in  tIic 
domestic  administration  of  justice,  for  the  protection  of  private  i];L;lits 
and  of  persojis  wrongfully  accused,  are  to  be  set  aside  in  cases  of  iiitci- 
national  controversy.  International  law  would  then  become  a  pretext 
not  only  for  interfering  with  the  internal  arrang«'njents  of  different 
countries  in  matter  of  legal  jn'occHbire,  but  for  drawing  back  society  to 
the  use  of  those  less  safe  means  for  the  enlbrcement  of  rights  wliicli.  in 
the  (;ourse  of  its  i)rogress,  it  has  Ibujul  reason  to  exchange  for  otlier:iii(l 
more  e(piitable  means. 

To  found  a  charge  of  neglect  mi  the  lapse  of  so  short  an  intei  vai  as 
occurred  in  the  case  of  the  Alabjnna  between  the  production  of  eviilonic 
and  the  decision  that  it  was  suflicient  to  act  upon,  is  to  lay  down  an 
imi)racticabl(^  standard  of  human  coiuluct.  Jt  is  a  deuuiml  that  tbc 
conduct  of  a  government  with  its  various  departments,  with  iiiodcs 
of  action  which  are  of  necessity  methodical,  and  more  or  less  comi-lex. 
shall  proceed  with  a  mechanical  precision  which  is  not  applicable  to  the 
pra(;tical  business  of  life.  Where  nice  considerations  of  right,  as  W- 
tweeti  parties  having  opposite  interests,  have  to  be  weighed,  the  appli- 
cation of  such  a  principle  is  palpably  unreasonable;  .yet  ou  what  other 
principle  can  it  be  maintained  that  thc'time  taken  between  Friday,  the 
25th, and  Tuesday,  the  2!)th  July,  for  the  Joint  action  of  the  foreign  otiite 
and  the  law-ofticers  was  so  plaiidy  excessive  that  it  may  Justly  be  made 
a  ground  for  formal  condemnation?  Does  it  not  rather  carry  with  it 
presumptive  evidence  of  goosl  faith  ? 

As  to  the  subseipient  arming  of  this  vessel  in  the  waters  of  the 
Azores,  Her  Majesty's  goverment  is  content  to  refer  the  arbitrators  to 
the  statements  contaiued  in  the  JJritish  Case.  They  are  told,  indeed,  in 
the  Case  of  the  United  States,  that  she  was  "armed  within  Uiitish 
Jurisdiction,"  which  is  explained  as  meaning  that  the  armament  in 
tended  for  her  was  sent  from  the  same  |»ort  a^  the  ship  herself.  It  is 
added  that  "  the  British  authorities  had  such  ample  notice  that  tlicv 
must  be  assumed  to  have  known  all  the  facts."  If  by  this  it  be  meant 
that  the  gOAernment  or  its  officers  had  any  notice  of  the  dispatch  of  thf 
Alabama's  armament,  the  fact  is  otherwise;  if  the  meaning  be  that. 
because  they  knew  of  the  building  of  the  ship,  they  must  be  assmneil 
to  have  known  the  arrangements  for  arnung  her,  (of  which  they,  as  well 
as  the  minister  and  consul  of  the  United  States,  were,  in  fact,  totallv 
ignorant,)  this,  to  say  the  least,  would  be  a  presumption  of  a  mt; 
strange  and  unusual  kind. 

As  to  this  point,  it  is  enough  to  repeat  here  what  was  .said  in  tiic 
Case  of  Great  Britain.  The  Alabama  sailed  from  Knghind  wholly  in- 
armed, and  with  a  crew  hired  to  work  the  ship,  and  not  enlisted  for  the 
confederate  service.    She  received  her  armament  at  a  distance  of  luoie 


f  1119-1  Jl«|.i]4| 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    (JREAT    BRITAIN. 


31'J 


lU'O  Ol"  IlK'lt' 


rlian  1,000  miles  from  EnglamI,  anil  was  aruied  for  war,  not  within  tlio 
(iueeu's  dominions,  but  either  in  Portnguese  waters  or  on  the  high  seas. 
The  guns  and  ammunition,  which  were  put  on  board  of  her  oftTerceira. 
iiiul  been  procured  and  exported  from  England  in  an  ordinary  merchant 
steamer,  which  loaded  them  as  cargo,  and  sailed  with  a  regular  clear- 
;iuce  for  Nassau.  The  clearance  and  departure  of  this  steamer  pre- 
sented, so  far  as  ITer  Majesty's  gove<i:ment  is  aware,  no  circunivstance 
(listinguishiug  her  from  ordinary  blockade-runners.  No  information 
nas  ever  given  or  representation  made  to  the  government  as  to  this 
>liip  or  her  cargo  before  she  left  British  waters;  nor  does  it  appear  that 
the  errand  on  which  she  was  employed  was  known  to  or  suspected  b\ 
the  officials  of  the  United  States.  But,  even  had  a  suspicion  existed 
that  her  cargo  was  exported  with  the  intention  that  it  should  be  usod. 
either  in  the  Confederate  State.^  or  elsewhere,  in  arming  a  vessel  which 
had  been  jinlawfuUy  litted  in  England  for  warlike  employmeiir. 
SS]  this  would  not  *have  made  it  the  duty  of  the  oflicers  of  customs 
to  detain  her  or  have  empowered  them  to  do  so.  Such  a  trans- 
iutiou  is  not  a  breach  of  Ihiglish  law,  nor  is  it  one  which  the  Jlritish 
;(ivernmeDt  was  under  any  obligation  to  prevent.  AVhether  the  cargo 
was  sent  from  the  same  port  as  the  ship  or  from  a  different  port,  and  b\ 
the  same  or  diflerent  persons,  is  manifestly  immaterial  for  tliis  purpose. 
Tin  distinction  is  jdainly  not  such  as  to  create  in  the  one  case  a  dnt\ 
wl  ""'i  would  not  arise  in  the  other. 

The  Alabama  was  commissioned  by  the  government  of  the  C'onftd 
iiate  States  and  officere<l  by  American  citizens.  Of  the  crew  a  con- 
viderable  number  were  British  subjects,  who  were  induced  by  persua- 
sion and  pronises  of  reward  to  take  service  in  her  when  she  was  ott 
Terceira.  Others  were  American  citizens,  and  the  i»roporti«ui  which 
these  bore  to  the  rest  iri3reased  during  her  cruise. 

Her  Majesty's  government  refrains,  in  the  case  of  this  vessel,  as  in 
tiiat  of  tl..^  r  lorida,  from  pursuing  in  this  place  the  complaints  made 
respecting  the  subsequent  admission  of  her  into  some  of  the  colonial 
ports  of  Great  Britain.  It  is  said,  indeed,  in  the  Case  of  the  United 
States,  that  Earl  Russell  promised  ^fr.  Adams  to  send  orders  to  .lamaica 

which  she  visited  in  .January,  18G2)  to  detain  her  for  a  violation  ot 
British  rovereignty,  an<l  that  this  promise  was  not  kept;  and  that 
"Great  Britain  did  not,  as  Earl  Kussell  had  promised,  send  out  orders 
lor  her  detention,"  is  one  of  the  grounds  on  which  the  United  States 
iisk  an  award  against  this  country.  Earl  Ilussell  gave  no  such  promise. 
hi  a  conversation  with  jNIr.  Adams,  immediately  after  she  left  Liverpool. 
m\  at  a  time  when  her  immediate  destination  was  unknown,  he  is 
stated  to  have  told  the  latter  that  he  "should  send  directions  to  have 
lier  stopped,  if  she  went,  as  was  prob.able,  to  Nassau.''  Orders  to  this 
•"ti'ect  were,  in  fact,  sent.  But  the  contingency  contemplated  as  i)roba- 
Medid  not  occur ;  the  ship,  as  has  been,  seen,  did  not  go  to  Nassau,  l)ut 
to  Terceira;  and  when  she  lirst  appeared  in  British  waters  she  was  a 

ouunissioned  ship  of  war,  and  had  be6n  received  as  such  in  a  I'reiuli 
port,  as  she  afterward  was  (notwithstanding  the  remonstrances  of  the 

Tuited  States)  in  ports  of  Brazil.  It  was  not  the  duty  of  the  British 
Itovermnent  or  of  any  other  neutral  power  to  cause  her  to  be  seized 
md  detained  when  she  entered  its  ports  in  that  character.  She  was 
ivcoivod  there  under  precisely  the  same  conditions  as  vessels  of  war  of 

ijie  United  States,  and  the  imputation  of  partiality  which  is  cast,  in  the 

ase  of  the  United  States,  on  the  governor  of  the  Cape  Colony,  is  en- 
jtirely  devoid  of  foundation.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  enter  into  the  com- 
h'liiiuts  laid  before  Her  ]\[ajesty's  government  b^  Air.  Adams  respecting 


I 


.'If 


^}20 


TREATV    or    WASHINGTON. 


acts  done  by  the  commander  of  the  Alabama  on  the  high  seas.  Mr. 
.Vdams  does  not  seem  to  have  remembered  that  a  sentence  of  coademna 
tiou  is  not  necessary  where  there  is  no  neutral  interest  in  ship  or 
(^argo;  nor  that  the  practice  of  using  false  colors  to  approach  an  enemy 
is  regarded  in  all  navies  as  allowable,  provided  the  true  flag  be  hoisteil 
before  a  shot  is  fired.  Her  Majesty's  government  is  not,  however,  con- 
cerned to  defend  the  conduct  of  the  captain  of  the  Alabama,  when  out 
of  its  jurisdiction,  in  these  or  any  other  particulars.  Whatever  it  may 
liave  been.  Great  Britain  is  not  responsible  for  it;  Jind  if  it  furnished 
any  reason  against  the  admission  of  his  ship  into  British  ports,  it  would 
have  been  equally  valid  against  her  reception  in  the  ports  of  France 
and  Brazil. 

It  will  have  been  observed  from  tlie  foregoing  statement,  as  well  as 
from  the  fuller  narrative  which  Her  Majesty's  government  has  pre- 
viously presented  to  the  a>!>itrators,  that  the  cases  of  the  Florida  and 
Alabama  differ  from  one  another  in  various  more  or  less  important  par- 
ticulars. But  Her  Majesty's  government  again  submit  that  neither  in 
respect  of  the  Alabama  nor  in  respect  of  the  Florida  is  Great  Britain 
chargeable  with  any  failure  of  international  duty  for  which  reparation 
is  due  from  her  to  the  United  States. 


ilMi 


.    'a       iS\f'1.K  ' 


[89] 


*PART    VII 


'J0 


THE  GEORGIA  AND  SHENANDOAH. 


■■I 

:    i 

')•;;      ' 

•( 

The  (ii'iriiii 


rasaiiijj  to  the  cases  of  the  Georgia  and  Shenandoah,  the  tribunal 
has  next  to  deal  with  two  vessels,  as  to  both  of  which  it  is  , 
not  only  clear  that  the  British  government  had  not,  before  <i..r8J>aM>iyi,e.m,r 
they  respectively  departed  from  its  jurisdiction,  any  reason- 
able ground  to  believe  that  they  were  intended  to  cruise  or  carry  on  war 
auainat  the  United  States,  but  it  is  also  clear  that  they  were  not  within 
its  jiirisdict'on  armed,  fitted  out,  or  equipped  or  s[)ec5ally  adapted, 
cither  whollj"  or  in  part,  to  warlike  use. 

THE   (iEORGIA. 

The  Georgia,  as  the  arbitrators  are  aware,  was  a  vessel  bui!r  at  Dum- 
barton, in  Scotland,  and  sent  to  sea  from  the  port  of  Green- 
ock in  April,  18G3.    She  had  undergone,  when  completed, 
the  customary  surveys  by  the  proper  officer  of  the  port  of  Glasgow,  and 
{ is  described  by  him  as  appearing  to  be  intended  for  commercial  pur- 
j  poses.    Her  frame- work  and  i)latings  were  of  the  ordinary  sizes  for  ves- 
I  sols  of  her  class.    The  tide-surveyor  at  Greenock,  in  like  manner,  "  saw 
j  nothing  on  board  which  could  lead  him  to  suspect  that  she  was  intended 
lor  war  purposes."    The  collector  at  Greenock  adds,  from  his  own  ob- 
[  SCI  vation,  that  she  "was  not  heavily  sparred:  indeed,  she  could  not 
spread  more  canvas  than  an  ordinary  merchant-ship."^      In  short,  she 
was  bnilt,  litted  up,  and  rigged  as  a  ship  of  commerce,  and  not  as  a 
ship  of  war.    Indeed,  when  the  endeavor  was  afterward  made  to  emi)loy 
lur  as  a  cruiser,  she  was  found  upon  trial  to  be  not  adapted  for  this  pur- 
|i"se,  and  she  was  for  that  reason  dismantled  and  sold  before  the  end  of 
lihe  war,  after  having  been  at  sea  altogether  about  nine  mouths.    She 
|«as  registered  under  the  name  of  the  Japan,  in  the  name  of  a  Liverpool 

t'lchant,  and  was  entered  outward,  and  cleared  in  the  customary  way, 
lliaa  port  of  destination  in  the  East  Indies.  She  was  advertised  at  the 
ISiilors  Home  in  Liverpool  as  about  to  sail  for  Singa[)ore;  and  her  crew 
jwcro  hired  for  a  voyage  to  Singapore  or  some  intermediate  port,  and  for 

iperiod  of  two  years.  The  men,  when  they  were  hired,  believed  this  to 
Jl)t'tlie  true  destination  of  the  ship,  and  her  voyage  to  be  a  commercial 
joiie;  and  they  appear  to  have  continued  under  this  belief  until  after 
jtho  vessel  had  arrived  ott'  the  coast  of  France.  The  number  of  her 
lnew  appears,  from  depositions  furnished  on  the  part  of  the  United 
ji^tates,  to  have  been  about  tifty.  In  the  Case  of  the  United  States  a  de- 
liHiiption  of  the  ship  is  given,  without  referring  to  the  evidence  on  which 
jit  is  founded.  She  is  described,  in  one  of  the  depositions  obtained  and 
ll'roduced  by  Mr.  Adams,  as  "an  iron  vessel,  very  slightly  built.'"   There 


21  A— II 


'  Appendix  to  BiitiHii  Case,  vol.  i,  p.  4U4. 

-  Appeiulix  to  CaHe  of  tbe  United  Stuti'8,  vol.  vi.  p.  ^A'i. 


"it4l'J 


m-  ''■' 


u    ■ 


W 


.|.,( 


ft-  - 


322 


TRKATV    OF    \VASHIX<;TON. 


I' 


■  v^:'i 


'■'■• 


mI. 

.tt' 

m^ 

^nii 

1 

R 

1)  -iivS 

M 

te«^->a'^ 

is  110  reason  whatever  to  believe  tliat  when  slie  sailed  tioiu  (lieeiux-k  slu. 
had  a  niafjazine,  or  that  her  cabins  or  interior  tittings  were  of  any  uii 
usnal  8tren;^th.  She  had  on  board  joiners  who  were  fitting  np  licr  ciih. 
ins  when  she  left  her  anchorage.  Slie  was,  therefore,  when  slie  left  this 
conntry,  a  ship  to  whidi  the  first  three  rnles  mentioned  in  the  sixtli 
article  of  the  treaty  wonld  not  apply ;  nor  was  she  a  ship  with  whicli  Her 
Majesty's  government  were  under  any  obligation  to  interfere,  accoidin;' 
to  any  known  rule  or  principle  of  international  law.' 

Tlie  assertion  is  repeated  in  this  case  that  the  service  for  wliidi  tlif 
vessel  was  constructed  was  "  notorious.''-  In  proof  of  this  tin'  inl)itrii 
tors  are  fuvnished  with  two  anonymous  letters  jiublished  in  an  lOnniisli 
newspajM'r  in  February,  IHCtli,  one  of  which  contained  no  reference  what 
ever  to  this  or  any  vessel  building  or  supposed  to  be  building  for  tho 
(Jonfcilerate  States,  while  the  other  declared  that  upwards  of  titty  wciv 
being  built  for  the  government  of  those  States,  and  nuMitioned  a  "liiir 

screw-steamer,"  lying  in  the  Clyde  and  calle«l  the  Virginia,  iis  ic 
f90|      i>orted  to  be  jmrtly  owne<l  by  tlie  confederates  and  *partly  I)y  in 

dividuals  at  Nassau  ;  athling,  "  It  is  ])ublicly  announ(red  that  slic 
.  is  soon  to  be  employed  on  the  line  between  Nassau  ami  Charh'ston." 
An  anonymous  letter,  mentioning  a  report  that  a  particular  vessel  \vii> 
destined  for  a  blockade-runner,  and  was  i)artly  owned  by  the  coiiledei 
ate  government  and  partly  by  luivate  individuals  at  Nassau,  is  tiius  ad 
duced  as  ]n'oof  that  it  was  notori(»us  that  the  same  vessel  was  inteiKUii 
for  a  confederate  cruiser.  "  Her  destination,''  it  is  adde<l,  "'  reudcred  i; 
<;ertain"  that  she  was  to  carry  on  war  against  the  United  States,  llcr 
destination,  as  we  have  seen,  was  Singapore. 

In  this  cas(^  again,  as  in  others,  the  inquiry  arises  why  no  intbniiation 
of  an  enterprise  described  as  having  been  so  •'  notorious,"  and  of  siuli 
serious  consequences  to  the  United  States,  was  furnishe«l  to  Her  Maj 
esty's  government  or  to  the  local  authorities  by  the  United  States  ton 
sul  on  the  sjwt,  or  by  I\Ir.  Adams.  The  latter,  it  subsequently  appeared. 
h.id  "long  been  in  possession  of  information  about  the  (!onstruction  and 
outfit"  of  the  ship;  but  "  nothing  had  ever  been  furnished  to  iiiin  of  a 
nature  to  take  i)n)«!eedings  upon."  At  all  events  he  remained  periWtly 
silent  till  nearly  a  week  atter  the  vessel  had  sailed  ;  and  the  arbitrators 
are  now  asked  to  d«^cide  that  because  the  British  government  did  not 
t^ike,  with  respect  to  a  vessel  about  which  it  was  in  entire  ignoranir. 
proceedings  whi(!h  Mv.  Adams  himself  knew^  of  no  facts  to  support. 
(Ireat  Britain  is  guilty  ♦»f  a  failure  of  international  duty,  ami  lesjjonsi 
ble  for  the  consequences  of  it  to  the  United  States. 

It  is  next  made  a  matter  of  c(unp]aint  that,  when  informed  tliiit  tin' 
(Jeorgia  had  sailed,  the  government  did  not  send  a  ship  of  war  in  pur 
suit  of  her.     "The  sailing  and  destination  of  the  .Ia[»an,"  it  is  said. 
"were  so  notorious  as  to  b(^  the  sul)ject  of  newspaper  comment.    N'> 
time,  therefore,  was  re«piired  tVu*  that  investigation.     It  could  have  Iuimi 
very  little  trouble  to  acertain  the  facts  as  to  the  Alar,"  (the  nierchani 
vessel  which  carried  out  for  her  arms, ollicers,  and  men.)     "The  aiuswerj 
to  a  t«'legram  could  have  been  obtained  in  a  few  minutes.    jMeirotwar 
might  have  been  dispatched  on  the  8th  Irom  Portsmouth  and  IMynioiitlij 
to  seize  these  violators  of  liritish  sovereignty."     "  This  was  not  iloni.' 
The  sole  evidence  produced  in  proof  that  the  sailitig  and  destination  o 
the  Japan  were  notorious  on  the  8th  of  April  is  an  extract  from  a  Livtr  I 
pool  paper  [jublished  on  the  Dth,  which  mentioned  a  report  that  theves 


'  llritiwli  Case,  p.  122. 

-CVsn  of  tilt'  IJiiited  States,  pp.  3D2,  408  ;  Appendix  to  ditto,.  vo\  vl,  p.  50.?. 


^Tf  f'P"-  \ 


COUNTKH    CASK    OV   CRKAT    BRITAIX. 


323 


ied  tliat  tlu' 

war  in  i>"v 

"  it  is  .saitl. 

Iinnu'iit.    ^" 

Id  have  luH'ii 

lie  uieiThiiiu- 

.  The  aiisww 

luUMyimmtlil 
Is  not  tloiH'. 
jestiuatioii  ol ! 
Ironi  a  Livir  | 
Ithat  tbe  vcs 


n,  p.  ^>0'- 


M-l  was  iiitondod  for  the  contodorate  service,  an<l  Iiiid  .sailed  "lor  un- 
known <lestinations." 

If  recourse  had  Ixmmi  had  to  the  navy.  ''  it  is  probable,"  the  arbitra- 
tors arc  tohl,  "that  the  complaints  of  the  United  States  uiijjht  not  have 
Iwiniocessary.'"     Thej'  nii^fht  have  not  been  necessary  if  Mr.  A<hinis 
111(1  wMinnunicated  in  jjood  time  such  information  as  he  ]»ossessed,  in- 
<ton(l  of  keepinj?  it  undisclosed  until  six  days  after  the  sailing-  of  the 
(u'oriL'ia,  and  more  than  three  days  after  the  departnre  of  the  Alar,  and 
:i  tliat  information  had  tended  to  i)rove  an  a<!tual  or  contemplateil 
violiition  of  the  law.     As  it  was,  the  intelligence  of  the  departure  of  the 
I  (.('Oiftia,  and  the  assertioji  (a  bare  assertion  unsnpported  l>y  any  i)roof 
It  all)  that  she  was  intended  for  the  conre<lerate  service,  were  lirst  com- 
I iiiiinicated  to  the  jjovernment  on  the  8th,  cunpled  with  the  statement 
lilt  "her  immediate  destination  is  Alderney,  where  she  may  be  at  this 
hioment."^    That  the  Alar  had  sailed  from  Xewhaven  lor  Alderney  an<l 
Siiiiit  Mrtlo  was  at  this  time  knowtj  to  the  board  of  customs,  tlion};h  not 
known  at  the  foreifrn  office.     "No  investi<?atit)n,*"  the  cas«^  pnu-eeds, 
I'was necessary."    Mr.  Adams's  information  (Misjfht  to  have  been  at  once 
issmned  to  be  right — though  it  was  very  fre«pu'ntly  wrong,  and  in<leed 
[was  materially  erroneous    in    the    present   instance.    The  cargo  and 
lilestination  of  the  Alar  might  have   been  ascertained  "  by  telegraph 
111  iv  few  minutes."     Months   had    been    insutticient,    apparently,  to 
'liable  Mr.  Adams  to   acipiaint   himself  with  facts   "of   a  nature  to 
[Kase  proceedings  on  ;"    Her   Majesty's   government    is  to    be  allowed 
idv  "a  few    minutes."     The    Alar,   assumed   to   be  putting  to  sea 
•III  a  secret  and   illicit  errand,    would   naturally,    it  ai)pears   to   be 
Mipposed,  leave  the  particulars  of  her  cargo  and  true  destination  in  the 
Ipossession  of  the  revenue  otHeers  at  Newhaven.     A  vessel  of  war  dis- 
llnitdied  from  Portsnuiuth  or  Plymouth  on  the  8tli  to  Alderney  (the  place 
Ibifinated  by  Mr.  Adams)  would,  it  is  further  assumed,  have  been  able 
IrttiiHl  the  (reorgia  at  Ushant,  which  is  not  less  than  1"»0  miles  (ktV  and  in 
la  very  ditterent  direction,  and  to  find  her  before  she  left  that  coast  on 
Ttlii-  ilth  or  Kith.     Her   Majesty's   government  must  be  permitted  to 
ilispive  that  a  celerity  and  activity  of  movement  are  i)y  this  hypoth- 
H^  attributed  to  Her    Majesty's  shii)s  which  would  be  nothing  less 
mil  extraordinary.      I>ut    it   seems,   besides,   to   be  forgotten    that 
IMiaiit  and  its  territorial  waters  are  not  within  the  <lominions  of  Her 
liijesty.    They  are  close  t(>  the  coast  of  France,  and  within  the  do- 
iiiiioiis  of   that  power;   and,  even  if  it    had  been  the  duty  of   the 
Hiitisli  (iovernment  to  institute  a  pursuit  on  the  high  seas  of  vessels 
H  shown  to  have  committed  any  offense  either  against  Jiritish  law 
ii^ainst  the  law  of  nations,  a  seizure  of  them  in  French  waters 
would   have  been   as   plain    a  violation    of  the  sovereignty  of 
1     France,  as  that  of  the  Chesapeake  in  December,  l.Sii.i,  *\vitinu 
the  waters  of  Nova  Scotia,  by  a  United  States  cruiser,  was  a 
[mlation  of  the  sovereignty  of  Great  l>ritain.    That  an  error  had  been 
Vmiiiitted  in  the  latter  case  wasacknowleged  by  the  United  Statics;  the 
piitish  government  would  certainly  decline  in  a  like  case  to  commit  a 
jiiiiilar  error. 

liut  the  arbitrators  are  already  aware  that  the  British  autlio  ities  did 

[le  very  thing  which  they  were  accused  of  not  having  «lone.     Farl  Itus- 

pl (lid  not  order  inquiries  only ;  he  did  order  action,     A  s'lip  of  war 

>  ill  fact  sent  to  Alderney,  not  indeed  from  Portsmouth  ir  Plymouth, 

tit  fioiu  Guernsey,  to  prevent  any  attenipt  which  miufht  be  made  to 

'  Case  of  the  Unite. I  iStiitL's,  |>,  .  9  •. 
2  Appontlix  to  ditto,  vol.  vi,  p.  .'0  >. 


it  I 


f4| 


■4M 


; 'Aw^ 


')■ 


u,  '" 


1) 

4     .  ", .  ,-       .    ^ 

tl     S       '    ' '1 

'  1   4  k 

'.  f  f^ 

h  f;      I 

1   r« !' 

t 

Aid 

\l 

'■hm 

1/    - 

)  iMiMiiiiiiiii 

!           i 

MM 

324 


TREATY    OK    WAHIIINOTON. 


imH 


violate  tluj  toicign-rnliHtiiK'nt  act  within  JJritish  waters,  only,  liowovcr. 
to  find  that  Mr.  Adaafs  information  as  to  tlie  immediate  destination  nl 
the  suspecteil  vessel  liad  been  wron^. 

Havinjj:  delayed  till  too  late  givinfj  any  information  to  the  Ilritisli 
government  about  this  ship,  and  having  then  given  information  which 
was  erron<'ons,  the  United  States  would  fain  have  the  arbitrators  assimio 
that  it  was  the  duty  of  this  government  to  emplo^Mts  naval  forces  in 
searching  for  and  ))nrsning  her  on  the  high  seas,  and  even  in  forei^'ii 
waters.  There  is  no  ])retense  f(,»  ihe  suggestion  of  such  a  duty.  Xo 
such  duty  has  been  acknowledged  by  the  United  States  themselves,  noi 
by  any  other  power.  Yet  it  is  imjjossible  to  deny  that  the  British  ^m. 
eminent  did  act  in  this  matter  with  promptitude  and  alacrity,  scanty 
though  the  information  was,  and  quite  unsupported  by  proof,  and  too 
late,  though,  it  i)robably  was  for  any  ettectual  measures. 

Unable  to  establish  against  (Ireat  Britain  any  failure  of  duty  in  tiiis 
resj)ect,  the  United  States  attempt  to  found  a  claim  on  the  facts  that  no 
punishment  which  appears  adequate  to  the  (lovernment  of  the  United 
States  was  intiicted  on  the  persons  concerned  in  fitting  out  the  (leor;'iii. 
and  that  she  continued  for  some  months  to  be  registered  as  a  Uritish 
owned  ship.  It  is  true  that  these  arguments  are  evidently  adviinrtd 
with  little  confidence,  but  that  they  should  be  suggested  at  all  is  to  lici 
Majesty's  government  a  matter  of  some  surprise. 

ller  Majesty's  government  is  compelled  to  ask  whether  it  is  seriously 
contended  by  the  (lovernment  of  the  United  States  that  the  (Jcorgia. 
"  though  nominally  cruising  under  the  insurgent  flag  and  under  the 
direction  of  an  insurgent  ofKcer,"  was  all  the  time  really  controlled  and 
owned  by  a  Uritish  subject.    Is  it  not,  on  the  contrary,  certain  that 
even  while  Bold's  name  remained  on  the  register  as  that  of  her  nominal 
owner,  the  real  ownership  and  control  was  in  the  confederate  govern 
ment?    Does  the  (iovernment  of  the  United  States  seriously  contest 
this?    ilas  it  any  serious  doubt  of  it?    Her  Majesty's  government  is 
unable  to  believe  that  it  has.    liut  even  could  it  be  shown  that  IJoId 
was  the  actual,  instead  of  being  the  nominal,  owner;  that  the  confedei 
ate  flag  was  (as  seems  to  be  suggested)  merely  used  to  cover  the  acts  of 
Hold  and  his  agent,  the  confederate  ofhcer;  and  that  the  ship  was  tlieiv 
fore  in  truth  and  fact  piratical,  this  would  impose  no  responsibility  on 
the  British  government.     It  cannot  be  maintained  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States  that  a  government  is  to  be  held  responsible  for  acts. 
whether  of  war  or  of  piracy,  done  out  of  its  jurisdiction  and  beyond  it> 
control,  on  the  ground  that  the  vessel  by  whose  instrumentality  they 
were  committed  was  either  nominally  or  really  the  property  of  oneot| 
its  subjects.    Certainly  there  is  no  power  in  the  world  by  which  this 
proposition  has  been  more  explicitly  or  resolutely  denied. 

But  this  is  not  all.  If  the  argument  be  (as  it  is)  untenable  on  general  j 
l)rinciples,  what  are  we  to  think  of  it  when  we  find  that  the  very  .slii|i. 
which  is  asserted  to  have  been  British  all  along,  was  actually  captureil 
after  she  left  Liverpool,  and  when  plying  as  a  merchant-ship,  on  tin  I 
ground  that  she  was  a  confederate  sliip  of  war,  and  could  not,  even  byf 
a  regular  sale  in  a  neutral  port,  pass  into  the  jjosscssion  of  a  Britis 
owner  and  into  the  British  mercantile  marine?  She  is  not  British  wheiij 
the  (|uestion  is,  whether  she  is  to  belong  to  a  neutral  who  has  boujilit| 
and  paid  for  her,  or  to  l)e  seized  and  appropriated  by  the  United  States,! 
She  becomes  British  again  (but  not,  so  far  as  appears,  for  the  benefit  otj 
her  former  British  owner)  when  it  is  supposed  to  be  possible  to  fouuuj 
on  her  allege«l  British  character  a  claim  against  Great  Britain. 
Of  the  complaint  that  she  was  sufl'ered  to  remain  in  poit  for  thepurj 


^ 


COl'NTER    CASK    <H'"    GUKAT    MKITAIN. 


325 


imse  of  Ix'iii;;  (lisrnaiitlcd  jiimI  sold,  it  is  only  iu'<M\sHiii'y  to  say  that,  even 
could  this  l»t!  shown  to  bo  (what  it  clearly  was  not)  an  imioih'ous  or  im- 
proper iiululiJU'iice  on  tin'  part  of  tho  liritish  anthoritios,  it  was  not  a 
liiiliue  of  «luty  from  which  any  injury  arose  to  the  Unite«l  States ;  it  coiihl 
not,  therefore,  be  ma<le  the  foundation  of  a  claim,  and  is  not  properly 
witliiii  the  scope  of  the  reference  to  the  tribunal. 

llpr  Majesty's  {government  has  never  before  heard  it  su;>:{jested  that  a 
1,'ovcrnnient  winch  forbears  to  institute  i»rosecutions  ajjainst  all  the  i»er- 
sons  who  may  have  been  concerned  in  littinj;  out  or  manning;  a  i)arti«'U- 
lar  vessel  for  the  naval  service  of  a  belligerent,  or  may  themselves 
It'l  have  served  on  board  of  her,  becomes,  on  that  account,  *resj)on- 
sible  lor  the  losses  which  she  may  have  been  instrumental  in 
inllictin}?  on  the  other  bellijjerent ;  and  it  fails  to  see  how  those  losses 
can  he  attributed  to  the  subsequent  forbearance  to  prosecute.  The  con- 
siMinencesto  which  such  a  principle,  if  pursued,  would  lead,  cannot  be 
uiiknowu,  certainly,  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  It  is 
true,  indeed,  that  w  lien  a  succession  of  criminal  enterprises,  openly  nn- 
ilertaken  against  the  peace  and  security  of  a  friendly  country,  are  suf- 
fered to  remain  unpunished,  the  encouragement  which  such  impunity 
lioUls  out  to  subsequent  enterprises  of  a  like  kind  is  a  proper  subject  of 
jrnive  remonstrance,  an<l  may,  if  remonstrance  be  unheeded,  justify'  the 
injured  nation  in  resorting  to  measures  of  self-redress.  But  Iler  Majes- 
ty's government  has  always  been  cautious  in  the  exercise  of  this  right  of 
remonstrance,  being  aware  that  it  is  often  ditlicult  to  obtain  a  convic- 
tion for  offenses  of  this  class,  and  that  the  difficulty  may  be  even  en- 
lianced  by  any  attempted  severity  of  punishment ;  and  being  sensible 
also  that  such  tpiestions  must,  in  general,  be  left,  in  every  country,  to 
the  independent  action  of  the  executive  and  judiciary  authorities,  with 
out  external  interference. 

hi  the  case  of  the  (Jeorgia,  prosecutions  were  in  fact  instituted 
against  the  only  persons  against  whom  there  apjieared  to  be  any  reason- 
able prospect  of  substantiating  a  charge  aiul  obtaining  a  conviction. 
As  to  the  sentence  pronounced,  that  is  generally  a  matter  over  which 
the  government  has  no  control.  The  law  leaves  it,  within  certain  lim- 
its, to  the  discretion  of  the  judges,  over  whom  the  government  lias  u<» 
power.  It  is  not  alleged  by  the  United  States  that  a  pcMialty  infficted 
liya  judge  was,  in  any  case,  remitted  by  an  act  of  the  executive.  There 
often  may  be,  and  in  this  case  there  were,  good  reasons,  in  the  interest 
of  the  law,  for  resting  satisfied  with  a  moderate  sentence,  rather  than 
raise  difficult  and  inconvenient  questions  as  to  the  construction  of  an 
act  of  Parliament. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  case  of  the  Shenandoah,  it  is  right  to  recall 

tlie  fact  that,  during  the  year  IH^li,  the  attention  of  Her  Majesty's  gov- 

jmnueiit  was  directed  to  many  vessels  building  or  fitting  out  in  British 

ports,  and  suspected  of  being  intended  for  the  naval  service  of  the  Con- 

ft'tleiate  States.     An  account  of  all  these  has  been  laid  before  the  arbi- 

Itratois  in  the  British  Case.'    It  has  been  seen  that,  of  twelve  8uspecte<l 

vessels,  four  were  seized  and  effectually  prevented  from  being  applied 

to  their  contemplated  purpose;  while  in  the  eight  remaining  cases  no 

reasonable  grounds  of  suspicion  were  found   on  examination  to  exist, 

pfhich  would  have  justified  the  government  in  interfering,  and  none  of 

them  were,  in  fact,  ever  armed  or  used  for  purposes  of  war.    It  has 

l>een  seen  that,  in  every  instance,  directions  were  given,  without  the 

least  delay,  for  investigation  and  inquiry  on  the  spot  by  the  proper  ofli- 

l^rs of  government;  that,  in  some  cases,  these  inquiries  were  ordered 

'  Pages  .13  to  50. 


32C 


TREATY    OK    WA.SIIIN(JTO\. 


and  made  U'foic  the  receipt  of  any  representation  from  Mr.  A«laiii.s; 
and  that  in  ever}'  ease,  without  ex<;eption,  either  tlie  inrorniatioii  fm 
ni.shed  proved  to  he  erroneous,  and  the;  .sup|)08ed  indicia  oC  an  unliiwt'iil 
intention  alisent  or  deceptive,  or  this  intention  was  defeate<l  or  aban 
•hilled  l»y  reason  of  the  measures  taken  and  the  viyihin(;e  exercised  In 
Ifer  Majesty's  ;;overnment. 

Far,  therefore,  from  favorinj;  a  presuniptioti  of  remissness  or  ncfrij 
;;ence  on  the  part  of  this  i;fovernment,  tlie  facts  clearly  estahlisli  n 
♦lirectly  contiary  presumption. 

THK  SIIKNANDOAir. 


This  vessel,  as  has  hecn  seen  from  the  statement  already  placed  1m 
fore  the  tribunal,  had  been  desi<{ned  solely  f«u-  a  iiicrciiinit 
steamer.'     She  was  built  at  (llasfjow  to  th.   order  of  a  Lou 
don  firm,  with  the  intention  that  she  should  he  eniph>.yed  in  the  China 
trade.     It  is  a  matter  (tf  first  imj>ortance  in  that  trade  to  m'«iuc  tli( 
earliest  arrivals  of  tea;  and  the  object  of  the  firm  in  (piestioii  was  to 
li,  ve  a  vessel  which,  by  the  use  of  steam  jiower,  wouhl  be  able  to  briii; 
h'Sne  the  new  teas  faster  than  the  quick  sailing-vessels  em|doyt'd  at  | 
that  time  for  the  jnirpose.^     The  Sea  Kinjjf,  as  she  was  then  (iillcd. 
started  on  her  first  voyajje  to  the  China  Seas  toward  the  end  of  ISO,!; 
and,  in  order  to  make  profit  on  her  passage  out,  her  owners  (MMitnictid 
with  the  {government  to  take  troojis  to  Js'ew  Zealand.    From  thence slic 
proceeded  to  ('hina,  and  returned  with  a  carjjo  of  tea  in  the  ordiiiaiv 
<;ourse   of  trade.      Before   starting:  she   had  been   provided  with  two 
smoothbore  twelve-pounder  guns,  such  as  are  usually  carried  by  sliips 
trading  in  the  China  seas,  to  i)e  used  as  signal-guns,  and  for  other  i)iii[ 
poses  common  to  merchant- vessels.'     In  September,  18G4,  after  her  n 
turn  to  England,  she  was  sold  by  her  owners,  Messrs.  Eobertson,  to  A 
Mr.  Wright,  a  merchant  of  Liverpool,  through  the  agency  of  rcgnliirl 
ship-brokers  in  that  town  ;  and,  on  the  8th  October  following,  sheafraiii 
left  London  on  a  voyage  which,  to  all  ajipearances,  was  precisely  siiiiilai[ 
to  her  former  one,  excejiting  that,  on   this  occasion,  instead  of  taking; 
out  troops  to  New    Zealand,  lier  port  of  first   destination  was  l>oiii| 

bay. 
j93j  *It  appears,  from  documents  now  produced  by  the  United  Statoi 

for  the  first  time,  that  Mr.  Dudley,  the  United  States  consul  at  I 
Liverpool,  IukI  noticed  this  vessel  when  on   a  visit  to  Glasgow,  whoivj 
she  was  built  in  October,  1803,  and  that  he  had  at  that  time  written  tij 
his  Cjiovernment,  describing  her  as  "  a  very  likely  steamer  for  tliocoiil 
federates,"  to  whom  he  heard  th.at  she  was  going  to  be  sold.    31r.  Dmll 
ley's  information,  as  not  infn^quently  happened,  proved  to  be  incormt: 
and  all  suspicions  were  set  at  rest  by  the  discovery  that  the  Sea  Ki 
was  taking  out  troops  to  New  Zealand.*    Nor  does  his  statenu'iit  tliati 
she  was   "  well  adapted  for  war  purposes"  seem  to  have  been  more  iiij 
curate.     Her  appearance,  even  after  her  conversion  into  a  confederate 
cruiser,  is  stated  to  have  been  that  of  an  ordinary  niorchant-vessel,  amll 
her  own  officers  doubted  whether  it  would  have  been  safe  to  fire  a  broad 
side  with  the  guns  which  were  then  placed  onboard  of  her.-'    It  is  tlierej 


'  Kritish  Case,  pages  14:?  and  IfiO. 
''Appendix  to  KritiMb  Case,  vol.  i,  p.  724. 
'Jbid.,  p.  725. 


■•  Appendix  to  Case  of  United  States,  vol.  vi,  p.  S.^i. 
'•  S«!e  report  of  Captain  Payne,  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  i,p.  Ti'tT,  and  of  tlie  I'liili'l 
Htates  consul  at  Melbourne,  Appendix  to  Case  of  the  United  States,  vol.  vi,  p. 'ill'i. 


V'.pll.'p  Iff 


C'OINTKK    CASK    ol'    (ilJKAT    URITAIN. 


327 


lore  clear  that  this  vessel  also,  when  sin;  leCt  this  (Hmiitry,  was  not  a 
ship  to  whitrh  the  lirst  of  the  three  rules  in  the  sixth  artielu  of  tho 
treaty  would  have  applied,  nor  a  ship  with  which  Her  Majesty's  jjov- 
eminent  were  under  any  oblijL^ation  to  interfere,  aceordinj;  to  any  rule 
(ir)irinciple  of  internati«)nal  law. 

It  is  not  ))retended  that  the  attention  of  the  British  H:<»vern?nent  was 
ill  any  way  called  to  the  Hea  Kin;;,  even  at  the  time  when  the  suspicions 
(it'tlie  United  States  consular  authorities  were  thus  roused  in  re^^ard  to 
Iht.    I'roiu  that  time  up  to  her  se<*ond  departure  fnttn  England,  in  Oc- 
t(»ber,  l.S<it,  the  vessel  seems  to  have  bt  mi  entirely  lost  sight  of.    Ten 
(lays  after  that  second  departure  Mr.  Dudley  discovered  and  re|M)rted 
to  tilt'  United  States  legati«»ii  in  liOndon  the  fact  that  Mr.  Wright,  the 
imivliascrof  the  Sea  King,  was  the  father  in  law  of  .Mr.  I'rioleaii,  a  mem- 
liei'ofthe  firm  of  I'raser,  Tienholiii  <S:  Co.'     it  is  now  conteiideil,  in  the 
(';i.s»'of  the  I'nitecl  States,  that  this  circumstance  in  the  family  history 
iiftlu'  lirm  should  have  been  known  beforehand  to  the  liritisli  goverii- 
iiieiit,  whose  duty  it  was  to  exercise  a  sjjecial  supervision  over  any 
transfer  of  shipping  inatle  to  or  by  this  gentleman,  and  that  the  inct  of 
his  having  actpiired  a  vess«'l  built  for  tin?  (Miiiia  trade,  and  sent  h<'r  out 
to  Uoinbay  with  what  it  siibsecpiently  appeared  was  an  ordinary  cargo 
tor  such  a  voyage,"  should  ''at  once  have  attractetl  the  attention  of  the 
Liitish  otlicials."    "The  omission  to  take  notice  of  this  fact,"  it  is  said, 
•is  a  proof  of  want  of  the  due  diligence  re«piired  by  the  treaty.'' '    It 
was  a  failure  of  due  diligence — nay,  even  of  "  the  most  ordinary  dili- 
;,'eii(;e'' — on  the  part  of  ller  .Majesty's  government,  that  it  forbore  to 
pry  into  the  family  circumstances  of  I'rioleau,  ac<iuaint  itself  with  the 
name  of  his  father-in-law — and,  it  may  be  presumed,    with  his  other 
eoiiiuetions — and  i)revent,  by  some  unexplained  i)rocess,  such  persons 
from  buying  steamers  in  the  London  market.     What  exact  "notice" 
tilt'  ofticials  should  have  taken,  or  what  they  should  have  done  to  follow 
lip  ■  <o  palpable  a  (jlew,"  the  L'nited  States  have  omitted,  or  perhaps 
inv!  ,(>t  found  it  easy  to  state.     It  is  dillicult  to  suppose  that  it  can 
he  seriously  argued  that  such  a  system  of  espionage  is  among  the  duties 
ttliicli  can  properly  be  expected  of  a  neutral  government,  or  that  such  a 
.rovcrmnent  can  fairly  be  charged  with  negligence  in  having  failed  to 
liscover  grounds  for  action,  when  the  parties  most  directly  interested, 
"ith  equal  access  to  information,  had  not  even  seen  cause  for  suspicion. 
Hut  Her  Majesty's  government  thinks  it  right  to  direct  the  attention  of 
tlie  tribunal  to  this  illustration  of  the  view  of  international  duty  on 
whieli  the  claims  of  the  United  States  are  founded,  and  of  the  "due  dil- 
ijfenco,"  the  "wakefulness  and  watchfulness''  which,  according  to  that 
view,  are  to  be  exacted  from  all  neutral  nations,  under  the  penalty  of 
iieing  exjjosed  to  such  deiiiands  as  are  now  made  against  Great  liritain. 

The  best  proof  of  the  apparently  innocent  nature  of  the  voyage  is  the 
'irc'uinstaiices  that  the  persons  most  likely  to  notice  anything  out  of  the 
'•rdinary  course,  namely,  the  crew  of  the  vessel  h(>rself,  were  nuite  un- 
suspicious of  the  real  intentions  of  the  owner;  and  that  when  it  became 
known  to  them,  on  their  arrival  otl  3Iadeira,  that  the  vessel  was  to  bo 
turned  into  a  confederate  cruiser,  forty-two  out  of  forty-seven  of  them 
iciiised  (nery  inducement  in  the  shape  of  money  and  promises  held  out 
'•^  them  to  serve  in  her,  and  insisted  on  being  sent  back  to  England, 
following 


day 


dep 


King 


port 


Ai»jit',ii«lix  to  Ciwe  of  United  States,  vol.  iii,  p.  319;  vol.  vi,  ]».  560. 
•Sec  t'vidi'iico  given  at  the  trial  of  Captain  Corbett,  Appeiidix  to  Case  of  the  Tnited 
>tatt's,  vol.  iv,  p,  (i;V2, 
Case  of  the  United  States,  p.  417. 


■'0r, 


328 


TREATY    UF    WAsHIN(iTON. 


lit'",'  ■  -"-'■  c^n 


m, 


Loudon,  another  steamer,  the  Laurel,  left  Liverpool  ostensibly  for  Mat 
ainoras  via  Nassau.  The  United  States  consul  at  Liveri)ool  reported  to 
bis  Government  that  she  had  taken  on  board  cases  marked  as  ma 
chinery,  but,  in  reality,  as  he  believed,  containing  guns  and  };iin 
[94]  carriages;  *that  she  had  shijjped  niany  more  seamen  than  wi'iv 
necessary  lor  a  vessel  of  lier  description  ;  that  he  heard  that  sonic 
confederate  officers  were  also  to  go  out  i^her ;  and  that  he  had  his  sus 
picions  that  she  would  ])rove  to  be  a  prWKteer ;  but  he  added,  "  1  have 
no  evideu(  ii  against  lier.'"  lie  could  ^PRi"  no  evidence;  but  this  dops 
not  prevent  the  introduction  into  thoHase  of  the  United  States  of  tlic 
assertion  that  the  British  government  could,  by  the  exercise  of  due  dil 
igence,  have  detained  her — without  evidence,  it  must  be  presumed,  and 
without  any  charge  of  an  offense  known  to  the  law.  Neither  Mr,  Dud 
ley  nor  the  United  States  legation  in  London  gave  any  notice  on  tlio 
subject  to  the  liritish  authorities,  and  the  attention  of  tlie  govcnimont 
was  first  called  to  *hi  proceedings  of  the  two  vessels  by  a  rej)()rt  i< 
ceived  on  the  12th  of  November  from  the  British  consul  at  Tencritlc. 

The  meeting  of  the  Laurel  and  the  Sea  King  off  the  Madeira  Ishinds, 
and  the  transfer  of  the  latter  vessel  to  the  confederate  flag  under  tlic 
name  of  the  Shenandoru),  after  receiving  ber  armament  and  crew  from 
the  Laurel,  have  already  been  stated  in  (letail  by  Her  ^Majesty's  govern 
meat  in  the  Case  presented  by  it  to  the  tribunal,  and  need  not  i>e  her.'  i 
repeated.    For  the  same  reason,  no  further  account  need  be  given  oil 
the  investigations  which  were  made  by  the  British  consul  at  TeneritJef 
on  the  arrival  of  Captain  Corbett  and  the  late  crew  of  the  Sea  Kiiifjatj 
that  island,  on  board  the  Laurel,  and  whicli  led  to  his  sending  the  cap  I 
tain  to  England  under  arrest  for  breacb  of  the  foreign-enlistment  act: 
nor  of  the  steps  which  were  thereupon  at  once  taken  by  the  goveriinicn'  j 
to  bring  the  offender  to  justice.    Her  Majesty's  government  maintains 
that  all  that  was  iu  its  power  and  could  fairly  be  .?xpected  of  it  was 
done  to  vindicate  the  neutrality  of  (ireat  Britain  on  this  occasion. 

The  Shenandoah  proceeded  ."rom  ]\radeira,  and,  after  a  cruise  of  about  | 
three  months,  anchored  in  llobson's  Bay,  tbe  i)ort  of  Melbourm^,  on  tlic 
evening  of  the  2r»th  of  -laimary,  lrtO.">,    She  was  the  tirst  vessel  of  wail 
belonging  to  either  of  tlui  contending  parties  which  bad  appeared  in 
Australian  waters  since  the  commencement  of  the  civil  war.-    Tlieeir  j 
cumstances  of  her  visit  and  the  conduct  of  ber  commander,  LieutenantI 
Waddell,  during  ber  stay,  placed  the  cohmial  authorities  in  a  positioiij 
of  no  little  di(ii(!ulty  and  perplexity,  in  whicb  they  seem  >    have  aeted 
Avith  great  discretion  and  vigor,  though  their  conduct  has  not  escaped! 
much  invidious  comment  in  the  Case  of  the  United  tftatos.     It  niaylH| 
convenient  to  the  arbitratois  tliat  the  facts  should  be  here  restated  in! 
the  form  of  a,  connected  narrative. 

Lieutenant  Waddell,  immediately  <>n  his  arrival,  sent  a  letter  to  tin] 
governor  stating  that  the  machinery  of  the  Shcnan<loah  reiiiiind  r 
]>airs,  and  that  lu*  was  in  want  of  «M)al,  and  reiiuesting  permission  to 
repairs  and  supplies  to  enable  him  to  g(»t  to  sr    as  cjuickly  as  pos,sibIe.-| 
This  note  was  received  about  half  past  8  o'clock  in  t!»o  evening  of  tlii 
I'oth  of  Janimry ;  and  the  messenger  was  informed  that  it  should  re- 
ceive earls  atteiition,  and   be  replied  to  in  the  course  of  the  tVdlo'vini 
day.    The  governor  accordingly  sunnnon«'d  the  executive  council  on  tli'l 
2Gth,  and  communicated  to  them  the  iipplication  he  had  received ;  aiiuJ 
upon  their  advice,  a  letter  was  addressed  to  Liciienaut  VVad<lell,  ^inintj 


'Appendix  to  Cuhc  of  the  IJuited  BtateH,  vol.  iii,  p.  317  ;  vol.  vi,  p. 
•' Appt'iutix  to  Brifi.sli  Iuhc,  vol.  i,  p.  r)00. 


:,M. 


■yr^Tfm^?^ 


COUNTER    CAHK    OF    GREAT    IJRITAIN. 


329 


iiijjtlie  permission  desircMl,  and  re  ineating  information  as  to  tho  nature 
iiul  extent  of  the  repairs  and  snpplies  refjuired,  in  order  that  the  gov- 
ernor Hjight  be  enabled  to  judge  of  the  time  necessary  for  the  Shenan- 
doah to  remain  in  the  port  ot  .Melbourne.  Ivxtracts  of  onlers  issued  by 
llcr  Majesty's  government  for  the  inoper  presjirvation  of  neutrality 
were  at  the  same  tinu?  forwarded  for  Lieutenant  WaddelFs  guidance.' 

U|»on  receiving  this  communication,  Lieutenant  Wa<ldell  applied  to 
)Ie!ss^^.  Langlajids,  iron-founders,  of  Melbou»"ne,  to  examine  the  vessel 
and  undertake  the  repairs.  He  seems  further,  from  a  report  received 
iiytlie  governor  from  the  ollicials  of  the  port,  to  have  at  <»nce  set  men 
to  calk  the  decks  and  outside  of  the  vessel,  which  was  the  only  repair 
that  could  be  executed  in  her  position  at  the  time.^  (^n  the  28tli  Jan- 
uary he  wrote  to  apologize  for  the  delay  in  furnishing  the  particulars 
R'(|uested  of  him,  and  explained  that  Messrs.  Langlauds  ha<l  been  pur- 
suiiift  the  examination,  and  ha<l  notyetlinislied  their  report,  although  he 
had  impressed  upon  them  the  importance  of  haste.  On  the  30th  .Jan- 
uary a  report  of  the  repaiis  require<l  was  furnished  by  Messrs.  Lang- 
hinds,  aiul  forwarded  by  Lieutenant  Waddell  to  the  colonial  govern- 
ment. It  was  to  the  eftect  that  it  would  be  necessary  to  place 
,li.')J  the  vessel  on  the  slip.'  (^u  the  sanu»  <lay,  and  before  *grauting 
permission  for  this  puri>ose,  the  governor  appointed  a  board  of 
three  otlicers,  one  of  whom  was  th  governnu'Ut  engineer,  to  proceed  on 
board  the  Shenandoah,  and  report  whether  she  was  then  in  a  tit  state 
to  go  to  sea,  or  what  repairs  were  necessary.  This  board  had  the  ves- 
sel examined  by  a  diver,  and  reported  on  the  1st  of  February  that  she 
was  not  in  a  Ht  state  to  proceed  to  sea  as  a  steamship;  that  repairs 
were  necessary,  and  that  the  extent  of  ihe  damage  could  not  bo  ascer- 
taiued  without  the  vessel  being  slipped.'  Permission  was  thereujjon 
sraiited  for  placing  the  vessel  upon  tlie  sli|>,  which  had  originally  been 
built  by  the  government,  but  was  at  that  time  in  the  hands  of  a  private 
tirni. 

In  reply  to  a  renewed  injpiiry,  Lieutenant  Waddell  stated  the  nature 
of  the  supplies  required  by  him,  which  consisted  of  fresh  provisions 
ilaily  for  the  crew,  and  stores  of  wine,  spirits,  lime-juice,  and  clothing.'' 
01  these  he  received  i)ermission  to  ship  such  quantities  as  might  reason- 
ably be  necessary.  An  application  which  he  made  to  be  allowed  to  1  md 
soiiic  surplus  stores  was  refused,  on  the  advice  of  the  attorney-general, 
as  being  inconsistent  with  the  proper  observance  of  neutrality ;"  and  he 
was  afterward  informed  that,  i'or  the  same  reason,  the  use  of  appli- 
ances which  were  the  jiroperty  of  the  government  could  not  be  granted, 
nor  any  assistance  rendered  by  it,  directly  or  indirectly,  toward  effect- 
ing the  repairs  of  the  Sheiumdoah.'  The  governor  had  also  giveji 
'lirections  that  the  olhcials  of  the  port  should  furnish  him  with  daily 
ivports  of  the  i)rogress  made  in  repairing  and  provisioning  the  vessel, 
and  that  every  precaution  should  be  taken  against  her  armament  being 
increased  or  reiulered  more  ett'ective.' 

The  reports  received  not  showing  sutticient  progress  in  the  repairs,  a 
letter  was  addressed  to  Lieuteiuint  Wa<ldell  on  the  7th  February,  desir 
ing  lii(n  to  name  a  day  for  i>roceeding  io  sea.    LieutenaJit  Waddell 


'  Apix'iidix  to  ItritiHli  Case,  vol.  i,  p.  r>l  I ;  vol.  v, 
Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  .'■)2!) ;  vol.  v,  p.  7'J. 
liiid.,  vol.  i,  p.  040;  vol.  v,  p. 


p.  t!'). 


«9. 


]>•' 


;{. 


'  Ibid  ,  vol.  i,  p.  .'ilri ;  vol 

*  Ibiil.,  vol.  i,  pp.  517  luid  (i4f ;  vtd.  v,  pp.  (>',>,  70. 

'■  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  .ViO,  .WJ  ;  vol.  v,  pp.  7.''.,  7li. 

■  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  C)4'i  ;  vol.  v,  p.  77. 

'  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  .')!iJ» ;  vol.  v,  p.  74. 


•    1^  1 


'A 


I.: 


ill 


m'  -i 


i. 


6  J,; 


330 


TREATY    OF    WA8HIN(;T0N. 


explaiiiwl  the  delay  which  had  taken  phice  as  arisiii]^;  from  the  nccm 
gales,  which  had  prevented  him  from  lightening  the  vessel.'  It  will  \n- 
seen  by  the  reports  from  the  officials  of  the  port  that  the  Slieuandoali 
had  broken  adrift  from  her  mooring.^  The  state  of  the  tides  fiirtlici 
interfered  with  the  process  of  getting  her  on  the  slip,  which  was  at  last 
effected  on  the  10th  Febrnary.  The  board  of  offlcei  s  appointed  by  the 
governor  then  again  examined  the  vessel,  and  reported  that  the  repairs 
necessary  to  render  her  seaworthy  (;ould  be  effected  in  about  live  clear 
working-days.'  On  the  14th  February  Lieutenant  Waddell  was  ajjain 
requested  to  state  when  the  Shenandoah  would  be  ready  to  put  to  sea. 
ami  he  re[)lied  that  she  would  be  ready  for  launching  on  the  afteriiooii 
of  the  next  day;  that  he  had  then  to  take  in  all  his  stores  and  coals. 
and  to  swing  the  ship.;  and  that  iio  hopeil  to  proceed  to  sea  in  lici  liy 
Sunday,  the  19th  instant.^ 

In  the  meanwhile  the  consul  of  tl.e  United  States  had,  since  the  nnj 
val  of  the  Shenandoah  at  Melbourne,  c<mtinued  to  address  protests  to 
the  governor,  denouncing  the  vessel  as  a  pirate,  and  contendinjr  tliiii 
she  was  not  entitled  to  be  con.sidered  as  a  ship  of  war,  and  that  it  \\a<. 
the  duty  of  tht  govern»nent  to  seize  and  <letain  her.  These  conumiui 
cations,  which  were  accompanied  by  various  affidavits  of  persons  who 
had  been  taken  off'  American  merchant-vessels  captured  and  destroyed 
by  her,  were  submitted  to  the  legal  advisers  ol"  the  <;olonial  governinent. 
They  reported  their  opinion  that  there  was  no  eviden<!e  of  any  act  ol 
l)iracy  committed  by  any  person  on  board  the  ship,  and  that  she  pur 
ported  to  be,  and  should  be  treated  as,  a  ship  of  war  belonging  to  a  belli;;- 
erent  power.'  An  answer  to  this  effect  was  accordingly  sent  to  the 
consul.*^ 

On  the  10th  February  the  consul  forwarded  an  affidavit  taken  before 
him  by  a  man  who  had  lately  been  cook  on  board  the  ship,  which  tended 
to  show  that  men  had  joined  her  from  the  colony,  and  were  at  that  tiiiif 
concealed  on  board  of  her.*  The  matter  was  at  once  placed  in  th( 
hands  of  the  police;  and,  evidence  having  been  obtained  to  identity  one 
of  the  persons  suspected,  a  warrant  was  issued  for  his  arrest  on  the  Mth 
February.'- 

On  the  evening  of  the  same  day  a  poIi<!e  officer  went  on  board  for  tiie 
purposeofarrestingthemen;  but  both  on  that  occasion  and  on  the  followiiii; 
morning  he  was  refused  permission  to  go  over  the  vessel  for  the  i)nrpose. 
Lieutenant  Waddell  pledging  his  word  of  honor  as  an  officer  and  a  jicii 
tieman  that  he  "had  not  any  one  on  board,  had  not  engaged  any  oin'. 
and  would  not  do  so  while  he  was  at  Melbourne,"  ami  de(!laring  that  he 
would  rather  light  his  ship  thaiifiUow  her  to  be  searched  for  the  man. 
The  matter  was  lai«l  by  the  governor  before  the  executive  coiuuil 
[*.M»j  on  the  same  day.  The  *Shenandoah  was  at  this  time  on  tliesiiii. 
although  nearly  ready  to  be  lauiujhed.  A  letter  was  addressed  tu] 
Lieutenant  Waddell  calling  on  him  to  reconsider  his  determination,  ami 
intimating  that,  in  the  meanwhih',  the  permission  to  repair  and  take  i!i| 
supplies  were  suspended.  A  prochunation  was  at  the  same  time  i.ssned  !•} 
the  governor  forbi<lding  Her  Majesty's  subjects  to  render  any  aid  or  assist. 

'  A|i|)*'ii(lix  to  ItritiMli  Cawn,  vu'.  i,  pp.  .')4*.i,  <I4:5;  vol.  v,  p.  77. 

•  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  .V2<»;  vol.  v,  p.  HO. 
'  Ihiil.,  vol.  i,  j».  ii'i'i  ;  vol.  v,  p.  7f. 

•  Il»i«l.,  vol.  i,  p.  ()4:{;  vol.  v,  p.  7H. 
"  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  r)ir>;  vol  v.  p.  H8. 
'  Ibid.,  vol.  pp.  r)lW,  (517;  vol.  v,  p.  fr8. 
"  Ibid.,  vol.  1,  p.  (iO(J;  vol.  v,  p.  107. 
"■  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p. .");«!. 

•  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  r.24 ;  vol.  v,  p.  109. 


the  i«'Cf'iii 
It  will  1m' 
nieiiiunloali 
lies  fiirther 
was  at  last 
itod  by  the 

ti\e  repairs 
It  live  clear 
I  was  a{;aiii 
» imt  t(t  se.i, 
e  afteniooii 
i  hikI  coals. 
',\  ill  1mm  Iiv 


u-  ■; 


iiee  the  ani 
I  protests  to 
endiiii;  tliiit 

that  it  was 
;e  coiiumini 
persons  who 
(I  desti'oytd 
Uovermneiit. 
if  any  act  oi 
hat  she  pur- 
g  to  a  belliii- 

seiit  to  the 


.  #  " 


•r. 


taken  bel'oro 
vhieh  tended 

at  that  tiiiK' 
hiced  in  the 

identity  one 
t  on  the  l.'ith 

»oard  for  tlic 
tlietbllowiiii; 
the  i)urpose. 
^r  and  a  ueii 
jed  any  out'. 
irinj;  that  lit' 
or  the  mail. 
itive  eouiicil 
on  thesliii. 
Addressed  to 
inatioiMiii'l 
and  taki'iiil 
meissned  Itvl 
aid  or  assist. 


Ifci.MBWlllW 


B 

1 

r 

f'ili 

i   l 


•     -'H 

"   .ilkl'^ 

mmw^ 


(OINTKU    CASK    or    (iKKAT    I5KITAIN. 


:vM 


ance  to  the  Slienandoali,  and  a  body  of  100  ]>olice  and  niilitaiy  were  or- 
dered down  by  telej;rai)h  to  seize  the  ship.  This  they  proceeded  to  do  the 
same  afternoon.  About  10  o'clock  in  the  eveninj;  four  men  were  seen 
to  leave  the  vessel  in  a  boat  pulled  by  two  watermen.  Tiiey  were  fol- 
lowed and  arrested,  and  one  of  them  proved  to  be  the  man  against 
whom  the  warrant  had  l)een  issued.' 

Lieutenant  Wadtlell  wrote  to  protest  ajjainst  tlu'  course  which  had 
been  taken.  He  denied  that  the  execution  of  tlu^  warrant  had  been  re- 
fused, as  there  was  no  such  i>erson  as  therein  specified  on  board.  Jle 
a(l(lo«l  that  all  stranjjfers  had  been  sent  out  of  the  ship;  and  that,  after 
11  thorouj!;h  search  by  two  commissioned  otticers,  it  had  been  reported  to 
liim  that  no  one  could  be  found  on  board  except  those  who  ha«i  entered 
the  port  as  a  part  of  the  Shenandoah's  coinpUMuent  of  men.  ••  1,  there- 
tore,"  he  wrote,  "as  commander  of  this  ship,  rejireseu tin};  my  jifovern 
nient  in  Uritisli  waters,  have  to  inform  his  excellency  that  there  are  no 
persons  on  board  this  ship  ex<;ept  those  whose  names  are  on  our  shippinj; 
articles;  and  that  no  one  has  been  enlisted  in  the  service  of  the  ('onfed- 
jtrate  States  since  my  arrival  at  this  i»ort,  nor  have  I,  in  -.\uy  May,  vio 
iliited  the  neutrality  of  the  port."-  This  letter  was  lai<l  by  the  governor 
[before  his  council  on  the  l.^th  of  February,  to<><'ther  witli  one  from  the- 
lessee  of  the  slip.  The  letter  state<l  that,  should  a  {jfale  of  wind  come  on. 
It  would  be  necessary  either  to  launch  the  Shenandoah,  or  to  run  a  great 
I'sk  of  her  sustaining  serious  damage  in  conse«pience  of  her  unsafe 
Losition,  and  that  the  government  must  take  the  responsibility  of 
iiiiy  expenses  Avhich  might  be  incurred.  As  the  object  in  view  had 
been  secured  by  the  arrest  of  the  men,  it  was  decided,  nn«ler  these  cir 
(•nil  stances,  to  withdraw  the  ])revious  prohibition,  and  to  allow  th<v 
launch  of  the  vessel.  Lieutenant  Waddell  was  informed  that  this  had 
been  done  on  tliC!  faith  of  the  assurance  he  had  given;  but  his  attention 
was  called  to  the  fact  that  the  four  men  arrested  had  been  on  board  his 
ship,  and  he  was  told  that  he  would  be  expected  to  use  all  dispatch,  so 
[as  to  insure  his  departure  by  the  day  named  by  him,  the  10th.' 

The  Shenandoah  was  accordingly  launched  on  the  evening  of  the  1 '•th 
ITebruary ;  she  reshipped,  from  a  lighter,  the  stores  which  ha«l  been  dis- 
jcharged  before  ]>lacing  her  on  the  slij>,  and,  after  taking  on  board  sup- 
Jltlies  and  coal,  she  left  ^lelbourne  at  half  past  7  o'clock  on  the  morning 
jof  the  18th  of  February,  being  one  day  sooner  than  was  expected. 

It  is  right  to  say  that  Lieutenant  Waddell  wrote  to  tleny  that  the 
lour  men  arrested  ha<l  been  on  board  with  his  knowledge;  they  had, 
[lie  said,  been  ordeii-d  out  of  the  vessel  by  the  ship's  police,  who  had 
Duly  su('('eede<l  in  discovering  them  afteithe  third  s«*arch.'  The  oflicers 
'if  the  Shenandoah  also  publisi  e<l,  in  one  of  tiie  newspapers,  denials  of 
jiiiiy  conii)licity  in  the  matter  on  their  part. 

l)uring  the  two  days  which  elapsed  between  the  lannch  <if  the  Siien 
undoah  and  her  departure  from  tlie  colony,  the  most  ear<'fnl  vigilance 
^as  enjoined  on  the  authorities  to  prevent  any  violation  of  the  foreigu- 
Hilistnient  act.  A  reference,  however,  to  the  nature  of  tlu'  harbor,  and 
^(1  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  will  show  how  dillicult  it  was  to  take 
[rt'eetual  preeaiitions  for  this  purpose.  Hobson's  liay,  the  harixu*  «»f 
Holbourne,  is  the  inland  termination  of  I'ort  I'hillip,  a  larg<'  i>asiu  of 
rrejifular  oval  shape,  sonu^  OO  or  70  miles  in  circuit,  with  a  nairow  en 
prance  to  the  sea.     Swh  a  conformation  of  coast  offered  great  facilities 


Aitjioiulix  to  Uritisli  Cas",  vol.  i,  pp.  .V2.V-.V27  ;  vol.  v,  pp.  1'!!>-11'2. 
Ibid.,  v,,I   i.  p.  (144  ;  vol.  \,  i>.  110. 
'Ibid.,  vol   i,  p.  ♦J4');  vol.  v,  ;>.  11*2. 
^  Ibid.,  vo  .  i,  p.  (!4»> ;  vol.  v,  jt.  113. 


'A; 
4. 


■^ 


>^'^ll^.-3 


'^--ScRUB  .  * 


SAND 


'yvt^tif,^ui\ 


eoiKT  ORMOHO 


332 


TKEATV    OF    WASHINGTON. 


'>i 


lor  Heiidiii^'  oft'  incii  from  (lifteront  parts  of  the  bay,  who  could  bo  shipptd 
on  board  the  Shenandoah  cither  before  or  immediately  after  aim  hm] 
passed  this  narrow  entrance.  There  was  no  British  vessel  of  war  at  or 
near  Melbourne  to  which  the  duty  of  watching  or  controlling:  the  move 
nients  of  the  vessel  <'ould  be  assigned.  The  legal  advisers  of  the  coloniiil 
government,  when  consulted  on  the  ijuestion,  had  declared  that  they 
were  not  jirepared  to  advise  that  the  execution  of  a  warrant  on  boarll 
of  her  could  properly  be  enforced  at  all  hazards;'  and  this  opinion  \vii> 
afterward  conlirmed  by  that  of  the  law-oflicers  of  the  Crown  in  Engljind. 
All,  therefore,  that  could  be  done  was  to  enjoin  such  supervision  as 
could  bo  exercised  by  the  water-police  of  the  jmrt  while  the  Shciian 
doah  was  at  anchor,  and  to  give  orders  to  the  pilot  not  to  allow  any  boat 
to  con>e  alongside,  or  any  person  to  come  on  board,  from  the  time  of  lie: 
weighing  anclior  till  he  left  her.'    With  regard  to  the  first  of  theses  two 

measures  it  is  not  ditlicult  to  perceive  that  to  keep  eft'ectual  watch 
f'.^TJ      *over  a  vessel  which  is  shipping  coals  and  stores  in  a  harbor 

from  two  to  three  miles  wide  sit  the  place  where  she  is  anchorc<i. 
in  the  midst  of  some  two  hundred  or  more  vessels  of  every  kind, 
must  be  no  easy  matter,  even  if  a  larger  force  were  em]»loyed  than 
<!Ould  be  available  for  the  purpose  on  this  occasion.  With  regard 
to  the  latter  precaution  it  is  evident  that  everything  must  depcjul  on 
the  good  faith  of  the  pilot,  and  his  ability  to  carry  out  his  instructions. 
After  the  Shenandoah  had  left  Melbourne,  it  became  a  matter  of  public 
report  that  some  men  had  joined  her  before  her  departure,  and  tlic 
number,  which  was  no  doubt  much  exaggerated,  was  stated  to  be  as 
high  as  fifty  or  sixty.  The  inquiries  made  afterwari  by  the  police 
resulted  in  the  identification  of  some  eighteen  or  twe?ity  i)ersons  alto 
gether,  who  ht'id  left  the  colony  and  were  believed  to  be  on  board  of  the 
«hip.  Of  these  it  appeared  that  seven  had  been  employed  in  shipniii;' 
coals,  and  they  went  on  board  in  the  night  or  early  nutruing  before  her 
ileparture,  on  the  pretense  of  getting  paid  for  their  work,  but  did  not 
return.  It  further  appeared  that,  about  \)  o'clock  on  the  night  of  llii- 
17th  of  February,  some  men  had  been  collected  on  the  railway-pier  ot 
♦Sandridge,  a  suburb  of  Melbourne.  The  pier  in  cpiestion  is  the  terminus 
of  a  r.ailway  from  the  town  of  Melbourne, and  there  is  a  communication 
by  a  steam-ferry  to  Williamstown,  which  is  on  the  oi>posite  side  of  the 
bay,  about  two  and  one-half  miles  distant,  and  where  the  i)atent  slip 
and  the  station  of  the  water-police  are  situated.  The  Shenandoah  Mas 
at  anchor  in  the  bay  between  Williamstown  and  Sandridge.  From  th( 
statement  of  one  of  the  boatmen  employed,  the  men  in  question  must 
liave  dispersed  into  some  wooded  land  a  short  distance  off  at  the  tiiin 
when  the  boat  of  the  water-police  canu^  round  to  that  part  of  the  har 
bor,  and  thus  avoided  observation.  After  the  boat  had  rowed  oil'  to 
the  op|)osite  side  the  men  seem  to  have  returned  in  snuiU  i)arties,  and 
gone  off"  from  ,the  pier  in  watermen's  boats,  which  jjut  them  on  board 
the  Shenandoah.  How  many  of  them  were  part  of  the  original  ciew 
returning  to  the  vessel  from  the  shore,  and  whether  any  were  now 
hands,  tliere  is  nothing  to  .show.  The  police  constable  on  duty  saw  tin 
boats  after  they  had  .started  and  when  they  were  returning,  but  had 
of  course  no  means  of  investigating  this  question.^  It  seems  indeed. 
from  the  wording  of  his  report,  as  though  the  darkness  or  the  distancr 
prevented  his  seeing  whether  the  boats  did  or  did  not  actually  t{'>  to  tbi' 


'  A]>]»onili\  to  Itritish  disv.  vol   i,  p.  52(5. 

-'  IliicK,  vol.  i,  p.  .Wh. 

'  Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  84. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  r),'»l-.")5;{ ;  vol.  v,  pp.  1I7-1-.W. 


COI'NTER    CASE    OF    GREAT    HRITAIN. 


vessel ;  all  tliut  is  stated  i.s  that  they  went  in  that  direction.  A  man  of- 
the  name  of  Itobbin.s  went  up  to  the  American  consulate,  where  lie 
arrived  about  11  o'clock  at  nijfht,  and  stated  what  was  takinpf  place. 
The  American  consul  sent  him  back  to  fjive  information  to  the  water- 
police  at  Williamstown,  a  distance  in  all  about  five  miles  by  land  and 
water,  where  he  must  have  arrived  too  late  for  any  interference  or 
iminiry.' 

At  about  5  o'clock  the  same  afternoon,  another  man,  of  the  name  of 
Forbes  had  come  to  the  American  consul  with  a  statement  that  he  had 
seen  tive  men  at  Sandridfje,  one  of  whom  liad  told  him  that  they  were 
•roiiifj  out  in  a  vessel  called  the  Maria  Koss,  to  join  the  Shenandoah 
when  she  jjot  into  the  ojien  sea  beyond  the  Jurisdicti<»n  of  the  port.  The 
coiiHiil  took  the  man  to  the  ottice  of  the  Crown  law  olticers,  which  had 
been  closed  some  time  before,  but  where  he  nu*t  the  Crown  s«>licitor, 
who  had  accidentally  returned.  Jt  does  not  fall  within  the  jjowers  or 
duties  of  that  olhcer  to  take  depositions  or  issue  warrants,  ami  he  re- 
ferred the  consul  to  a  majjistrate  as  the  ])roi»er  ])orson  to  go  to.  The 
coiisid  then  proceeded  to  the  Houses  of  Parliament,  and  placed  the 
matter  before  the  attorney-geiu^ral,  who  ott'ere<l  to  lay  the  nuitter  before 
the  {jfovernment  if  furnished  with  an  aftidavit.  Instead  of  complying 
with  this  suggestion,  the  consul  applied  to  the  chief  of  police,  who  natu- 
rally declined  to  act  without  a  warrant,  but  suggested,  as  the  Crown 
solicitor  had  done,  that  the  consul  should  api)ly  to  a  magistrate  for  the 
liiirpose.  The  consul  accordingly  went  on  to  a  police  magistrate  in 
MellK>urne.  This  latter,  after  examining  Forbes,  did  not  feel  justified 
ill  {.'ranting  a  warrant  on  such  testimony  alone,  and  he  advised  that 
application  shotdd  be  made  to  the  water  police  at  Williamstown,  who 
might  be  able  to  furnish  corroborative  evidence.  This  advice  the  con- 
sul (lid  not  think  lit  to  act  upon.  He  returned  home,  took  the  man's 
deposition  himself,  and  determined  to  forward  it  to  the  attorney-gen- 
eral, to  be  laid  before  the  government,  but  he  did  not  do  this  until  the 
Ibllowing  morning,  after  both  the  Shenandoah  and  the  Maria  Koss  had 
sailed.  It  is  not  true  that  (as  alleged  in  the  case  of  the  United  States) 
"he  could  get  no  one  to  attend  to  his  representations."  On  the  con- 
trary, they  received,  according  to  his  own  evidence,  "  i)atient"  atten- 
tion from  the  attorney-general,  as  well  as  from  the  magistrate  to  whom 
he  had  recourse,  and  they  advised  him  what  to  do;-'  he  did  not  follow 
that  advice,  and  he  is  certaiidy  more  Justly  chargeable  with  a  want  of 

due  diligence  than  those  who,  though  unable  to  issue  the  war- 
OSj     rant  he  asked  for,  did  their  best  to  j)ut  him  in  tiie  *right  way  to 

obtain  it.  The  Maria  Ross  was,  however,  twice  searched  before 
leaving  the  bay,  and  the  mate,  who  was  afterward  examined,  denie^l 
most  positively  that  she  had  taken  any  passengers,  or  that  aiiy  men 
were  concealed  on  board  of  her.' 

Siu'h,  as  far  as  is  known  to  Her  jMajesty's  govciiiment,  is  all  the 
intbrniation  which  the  authorities  of  Melltourne  were  able  t<»  obtain  as 
to  the  alleged  shipment  of  men  from  the  colotiy  on  board  the  Shenan- 
doah. It  was  furnished,  for  the  nu>st  i)art,  to  the  i)olice  by  the  boat- 
men who  had  been  employed  in  putting  the  men  on  board,  on  the  under- 
standing that  they  should  not  themselves  suffer  on  account  of  what  had 
been  done.  Of  the  four  men  who  had  been  arrested  on  the  night  of  the 
lUh,  one  claimed  to  be  an  Aujcricran  citizen  an<I  was  discharged ;  the 
other  three  were  remanded,  and,  after  a  month's  imprisonment,  brought 

'  Appenilix  to  liiitiMJi  Cjibc.  vol.  i,  p.  .')i?7. 

-  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  r>H7.  OIH. 

•'  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  r>.'>4  ;  vol.  v,  p.  120. 


:\M 


TKKATV    i)V    \VA.>IIIN<iTo\. 


'!('• 


to  trial.  Two  of  tluMii  wt'n^  tlu'ii  ((nivn't**!!  and  si'iitciiccil  to  rmtlicr 
impi'iHoiiint'fit ;  tlu;  tliini,  u  boy  of  si'veiitt'oii,  was  «lis«*liaiy(Ml.  Tin- 
governor,  in  n'portiii};  tlicse  lac^s,  annoiniced  his  intention  of  r«'fiisiii;,' 
the  liospitaiities  of  a  nentral  port  to  Lientenant  Waddell  and  the  otiici 
oHIcers  of  the  iShenandoah,  slionld  they  revisit  tlie  eolonyj  Ili>  wrote 
also  to  the  (governors  of  New  /eahind  and  tiie  other  Anstralian  eohniies. 
and  to  the  (u>niniand(>r  of  the  Itritisli  naval  forces  on  tlie  station,  to  warn 
them  of  what  liad  oceiiiTed. 

Having  thns  reeonnted  tlie  faets  of  the  visit  of  the  Shenan(h)ah  to 
Melbourne,  Her  IJritannie  .Majesty's  government  pro<!eeds  to  notiee  iht; 
more  important  of  thc!  complaints  nnifle  in  the  ease  of  the  United  iStates. 
respecting  the  manner  in  which  that  vessel  and  her  oftlcers  were  re 
<*«'ived  an«l  treated  by  the  anthoriti<'s.  Some  of  these  contradict  one 
another.  Tor  instan<'e,  at  page  (iMi  of  the  C/ase,  it  is  imputed  as  a  deliii- 
ipiency  that  Lieuti-nant  Waddell's  a)>plication  for  ))ermission  t«)  repair 
was  not  otlicially  answered  till  after  the  twenty-four  hours  allowed  l»y 
the  instru«-tions  of  January,  IS(Jii,  tor  his  stay  had  t'xpired ;  a  statement 
which  is  supported  by  no  evi<lence,  and  which,  from  the  terms  of  the 
Unite<l  States  consul's  report  to  his  own  (Jovernment,  appears  highly 
improbable.  It  will  them  be  seen  that  the  Sheiniudoah  entered  the  bay 
about  S  oVlock  )>.  m.  on  the  L'.'ith  of  tlannary,-'  siud  that  the  (consul  re 
ceived,  at  .'$..{()  p  .m.  on  the  next  day,  a  communication  from  the  govern 
ment  respecting  the  ]>ris()ners  whom  Jiieutenant  Waddell  desired  to 
land;  this  (;ommunication  having  been  decided  on,  ami  no  doubt  sent. 
at  the  same  time  as  the  answer  to  Lieutenant  Wadtlell's  ajjplicalion.' 
IJut  almost  imnu'diately  afterward  it  is  mentioned,  apparently  as  still 
more  reprehensible,  that  the  otticer  who  took  I  utenant  Waddell's  letter 
on  shore  returned  with  an  atlirmative  answer  the  sanu*  night.'  If  it 
was  wrong  to  delay  the  ot1i(Mal  answer,  it  isditlicult  t<»  understand  what 
excei)tion  could  be  taken  to  sending  a  verbal  reply  at  once  ;  but  it  will 
liave  been  seen  by  the  narrative  given  above,  that  this  second  state 
ment  is  alsi)  incorrect,  and  that  the  bearer  was  oidy  informed  that  the 
letter  woidd  receive  early  attention. 

In  th«'  ('ji.se  of  the  United  States,  ol)jecti«>u  is  taken  to  tlie  permission 
wliiih  was  given  to  Lieutenant  Waddell  to  take  on  board  li.liC*  tons  ot 
coal  while  at  Melbouriu^;  and  a  minute  exan)ination  is  attempted  of  tla^ 
nature  of  the  repairs  supposetl  to  have  been  nuide,  with  an  elaborate 
estimate!  of  the  time  in  whi»;h  they  might  have  been  completed,  if  pushed 
on  with  rapidity,  ami  if  nothing  had  occurred  to  delay  them.  '' It  is 
ditlicult,"'  tlie  Case  says,  "  under  the  circumstances,  to  resist  the  conclu 
sion  that  the  repairs  were  dawdled  along  for  the  [uirpose  of  securing  the 
recruits,  and  that  the  authorities,  to  say  the  least,  shut  their  eyt's  while 
this  was  going  on.''  At  this  distance  of  time  and  phue,  when  all  the 
particular  eircumstam'es  cannot  be  exa<'ily  known,  it  seems  to  Her 
nrifaniiit;  Majesty's  government  that  it  couUI  scarcely  serve  any  usefnl 
purpose  ti>  follow  all  the  details  of  a  technical  argument  which  is 
i\)und4'd  largi'ly  on  conjecture.  What,  indeed,  could  be  less  reasonable 
than  that  the  arbitrators  should  now  be  asked,  hi  a  case  of  this  kiml,  to 
set  aside  the  estimates  made  on  the  spot  and  at  the  time  by  governnnMit 

'A|>li<'n<lix  to  Miitisli  Ci\Hi\  vol.  i,  p.  rn>i). 

"A|ii>(inlix  til  till-  t'!im>  of  tin-  UiiitiMl  Stiitt's.  vol.  vi.  p.  r)8H, 

'S«'i   AppiiMJix  to  ItritiHJi  (."iist%  vol.  i,  p.  .'»1|.     It.  is  stiittMi  in  one  of  tlu^  innvspjipt'is 
Hiiil    liiiiiic   Wy  tlif  Aiiu'iicun  <'oiisiil,  tliut  tin-  rtiply  «!»«  known  on  l)oai(l  the  Slicniiii 
(loitli  Im  twt'i'ii  :{  aiwl  4  oVlocU,  (Apptnilix  to  Caw  <it' United  States,  vol.  vi,  p.  (i.Vi.) 

^'11)1-^  is  stated  on  tlio  uutliority  of  u  pnUlinlied  ac(M>iint  of  tlie  <;riiise  of  tiie  8lien;iii- 
di  all  Ity  oneoflier  ollieer.s,  wliieli  in  other  respects  also^ives  a  very  iiiaeciirate  aeeoinil 
of  the  i-oiiininnicatioim  between  Lienteiiant  Waddell  and  the  colonial  authorities. 


COrXTKIt    (.'ASK    (»P    (5UKAT    BKITAIN. 


335 


Til. 


iilHifi's  uihI  o.\pot'i('n('«>(l  pi-otcsHioiial  incii,  on  tiu'  .sti'<'ii<;tli  ot  ii  iiuMi-ly 
(•(tiijwtural  evstiinute  su^yiestod  l>,v  tlui  ITiiit^'d  Stairs,  wliirh  tak«'s  no 
lUToiinl  of  lo(;al  circuinHtaiKM's,  and,  on  no  licltiT  ^'ronml  tinin  tliis,  to 
iinpiiti'  iM'i;li;;(>n('('  an<l  <;onnivan('«>  to  tin*  anthoritii>M  of  an  important 
IJritisli  colony  If 

Tin'  Slicnandoali  anivt'd  at  Mi'lbouiiu' <lniin};  a  period  ot«'xr('»'din<ily 
M'vei'c  wcatlior.'     Slu*  wa.s  ohlij;ed,  aci-ordin^   to  tin*  sliowiny;  of  the 

United  States  tlioniHelvcs,  to  depend  npon  lier  steam  power,  on  ac- 
!I<J{     count  of  tlu^  ituidetpnicy  of  her  crew.     In  this  manner  she  *had 

expended  a  <-(»nsideralde  portion  of  her  ori<;inal  supply  of  coal,  and 
liixl  worn  out  the  inachineiy  of  her  screw.  She  thus  canH>  into  Mel- 
iKiiniio  in  a  partially  disabled  state,  and  reipu'sted  and  obtained  per- 
iiiissiun  to  make  u°ood  her  defects  aind  to  replenish  her  coal.  The 
I'liited  States  havi'  souy:ht  to  draw  a  contrast  between  her  tieatment 
iIkmv,  and  tliat  of  a  vessel  of  the  ('nit«d  States  Navy  at  J>arbados. 
Tlic  ditference,  howevei',  really  lay  not  .so  much  in  the  treatment  as  in 
the  circumstances  of  the  two  vessels  and  the  tenip«'r  of  their  respect- 
ive commanders.  The  Shenandoah  was  not  allowed  to  remain  in 
port  on  the  nu'ie  word  of  Jiieuteiiant  Waddell,  but  Mas  twice  sub- 
jected to  the  examiinition  of  a  board  of  otlicers  appointed  by  the  <;'ov- 
triior  for  the  p>irpos<',  who  (icrtitied  that  she  was  in  nei'd  of  repairs. 
To  this  examination  Lieutenant  Waddell  assented  without  any  demur. 
Captain  Ho^^'s,  on  the  other  hand,  who  was  distant  from  the  ports  of 
Ills  own  c<Minti'y  about  as  many  hundreds  of  miles  as  Meutenant  Wad 
dell  was  thousands,  took  otlense  at  a  retpu'st  that  he  would  ;;ive  an 
iissiuance  of  his  inability  to  i)Ut  to  sea,  and  i»refeired  to  leave  the  port 
at  once.  It  was  not  the  inteiution  of  the  orders  <»f  January,  ls«»L',  that 
a  vessel  should  be  dismissed  summarily  from  a  port  in  a  distant  colony, 
many  thousands  of  miles  from  her  own  ])orts,  in  a  crippled  state,  in 
which  her  crew  would  be  imi<le(piate  to  nmmiy:*!  her.  It  is  objecrtcd 
tliat  the  re[>airs  were  "dawdled" — and  this  when,  a  tew  |iay:es  befor*', 
attention  has  been  drawn-  to  a  passay«'  in  one  of  Lieulenaiit  WaddelTs 
letters,  to  show  that  he  ha<l  commenced  the  repairs  at  once,  before  a 
report  had  been  furnisheil  of  what  was  re<pMred.  On  reference  to  the 
copies  of  corresponclence  sent  honu'  at  the  time,  and  to  those  since  re 
eeivi'd  from  the  present  jfoverncu',  it  is  t'ound  that  the  senteiu'c  referred 
to  ("the  other  repairs  aie  pro<;:ressinj;  rapidly")  did  not  occur  in 
iiieiitenant  Waddell's  ori}»inal  lettei',  though  inserted  in  the  copy  pul> 
lislu'd  in  titc  colonial  newspapers,  from  which  the  ipn>tation,  in  tiie  Case 
ot  the  Llnitcil  States,  is  made.'  It  is,  however,  tiiu^  that,  with  a 
view  to  complete  the  repairs  as  soon  as  jjossible,  men  were  employed 
to  calk  the  vessel  as  soon  as  permission  to  repair  was  received.  The 
nature  of  the  weather,  whi(;h  was  very  rouj;li,  probably  rcndei<'d  it 
impossible  to  semi  down  a  diver  to  examine  tlu'  xt'ssel  l()r  the  lirst  few 
•lavs,  and  the  state  of  the  tides  seems  to  have  oc(;asioned  some  fiirtlM'i 
•lela.v  in  yettiny;  her  onto  the  slip,  but  in  other  respects  the  repairs 
were  i>ushed  on  with  all  possibU;  rajtidity  an<l  compl«'t«'d  within  tin- 
time  estimated  for  them.  Lieutenant  Wadd*;!!  expressed  throuyhont 
Ills  anxiety  to  shorten  his  stay,  ami  probably  with  truth,  if,  as  may  in- 
pitliered  from  the  correspondence,  his  men  were  <lesertinj^.  The  steps 
taken  for  exanuniuff  the  vessel,  the  vigilance  enjoined  on  tln^  aulhori 
tics  of  the  port,  the  daily  reports  recpiired  from  tiiem  as  to  the  i)royi-css 
'»r  repairs,  and  the  reiterated  request  to  Lieuti-nant  Wadilell  to  lix   a 

'  Case  of  tlio  United  States,  p.  421. 

« Ibid.,  p.  4-27. 

'See  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  v.,  p.  G8. 


■  'lit* 


33G 


TRKATY    OF    WAKHINOTON. 


(lay  fur  his  tl«>|tartiiic,  certainly  show  no  laxity  or  iiidispoNition  on  the 
part  of  the  colonial  ;;ovcrntncnt  to  preM'iit  any  alnise  of  tint  pcruiission 
(granted  by  it. 

l)n  the  (|ncstioii  of  thu  cnlistin(Mit  of  nuMi,  and  the  proceedings  takoti 
af^ainst  the  offenders,  it  is  remarked,  in  thu  Case  of  the  United  States, 
that  the  anthorities  ''carefidly  let  alone  Captain  Waildell  and  liis  otli 
c(>rs,  who  luul  Ween  violating;  Iler  Majesty's  proclamation  and  the  laws 
of  the  empire,  and  they  aimed  the  thunders  <d'  the  law  a;j;aiiiHt  an 
assistant  cook."  The  facts  are,  in  the  first  place,  that  there  was  evi 
dence  aj^ainst  tlu^  seamen  arrested,  and  suspicion  only  apiinst  the 
commander;  and,  in  the  sectuid  place,  that  the  arritst,  on  a  char^^e  ot 
this  kind,  of  the  c(»mmandin^  oDicer  of  a  forei};n  ship  (»f  war  who  may 
happen  to  he  ashore  (on  board,  of  <'ourse,  he  is  se(uire  from  it)  is  a  tar 
graver  matter  than  seems  to  l>e  suppttsed,  and  is,  indeed,  an  extreiiu' 
measure  which  only  very  «»xtraordinary  cinMiinstances  couhl  jiistity. 
The  lo(;al  authorities  received  up  to  the  last  the  most  positive  assiu' 
ances  from  liieutenant  Waddell  that  he  had  not  atlded  to  his  crew,  and 
had  not  violated,  and  would  not  violate,  the  neutrality  of  th(>  port. 
They  took  every  precaution  in  their  power  to  insure  the  performance  of 
this  promise;  and  if  their  efforts  were  not  alto;;ether  successful,  this 
must  be  attributed  to  the  difficulties  they  had  to  d«^al  with,  the  inade 
quacy  of  the  means  at  their  disposal,  and  to  the  reliance  which  they 
)>laced  on  the  word  of  one  whom  they  knew  to  be  an  American  ollicci'. 
and  mi<;lit,  therefore,  reasonably  believe  to  be  a  gentleman  and  worthy 
of  credit. 

A  ca.se  (with  which  the  arbitrators  are  already  ac<|uainted)'  of  tlic 
let'cption  of  .**ome  men  on  lu»anl  a  v«'ssel  of  war  of  the  United  States 
at  C(»rk  shows  that  such  occiirrenc«'s  may,  at  the  time,  escape  the  no 
ti(;e  not  only  of  the  authorities,  but  also  of  the  <;ommander  of  the  ves 
sel.    On  the  occasion  referred  to,  sixteen  men  were  shi|)ped  on  boa-'d 
the  Uniteil  States  war-steamer  Ivearsarye.     The  fact  was  not  known 
until  the  vessel  had  sailed  for  France;  and  on  her  return  to  Cork, 
1 10(H    a  month  afterward,  the  nuMi  were  sent  on  shore  by  •  the  traptain. 
with   a  declaration   that  they   had   been   shipped   without  his 
knowledjfe  and  contrary  to  his  instructions.     Six  of  the  men  were  i)ros 
e<'uted,  but  were  discharjjed  without    punishment,   as   havin<i;  prol» 
ably  iM'en  unaware  of  the  nature  of  the  offense  they  were  committing'. 
Hviden<'e  bavin;;  been  producred  to  implicate  some  of  the  inferior  otli 
cers  of  the  vessel,  representations  were  ad«lressed  to  the  (Jovernnient 
of  the  United  States  upon  the  sid>ject,  and  the  latter  expressed  their 
willinjiiiess  to  institute  an  investigation  when  the  Kearsar^e  returned 
home.    The  (tonrse  adopted  on  this  occasion  certaiidy  did  not  differ,  on 
the  si«l<^  of  severity,  from  that  pursue«l  towanl  the  Shenan«loah.    Nor 
is  it  ilonbtfnl  to  Jier  jNIajesty's  pjvernment  that  if  on  that  occasion 
Captain  Winslow  had  been  arrested  in  the  streets  i>f  (^>rk,  this  would 
have  been  rey:anled  as  somewhat  more  than  due  diligence  l)y  the  Gov 
ernment  (if  file  United  States. 

There  is  a  further  statement  in  this  i^art  of  the  Case  of  the  United 
States  which  Her  Ltritannic  Majesty's  government  approaches  with  re 
gret. 

At  page  4'M)  mention  is  made  of  a  discussion  whi(;h  took  place  in  the 
legislative  assembly  at  Melbourne  as  to  the  reception  of  the  Shenan- 
doah and  her  supposed  identity  with  the  Sea  King.  The  chief  secre 
tary  stated  that  "in  dealing  with  the  vessel  they  (the  government)  had 


'  See  I^ritisb  Caue,  p.  154. 


COINTER   CASE   OP   GREAT    HRITAIN. 


337 


not  only  to  coiisidor  tin;  teniia  of  the  ])ro(>lniiiatioii  »( iioiitmlity,  but 
alfM)  tliu  coiitltleiitiai  iiistriictioiiM  of  the  lioiiu>  pfovciriiiiiuiit/'  On  thin  it 
jH  rt* iiuirkod :  ^^  Here  the  United  States  learneil  for  tli<;  tirHt  time  that, 
ill  addition  to  the  piibliHlied  instructions  whieh  were  made  known  to 
the  world,  there  were  private  and  contidential,  ami  jmrhaps  cmflietintj^ 
instructions  on  tliis  subject."  Her  Hritanni<;  Majesty's  government 
thinks  that  it  will  best  c«)nsult  its  feelinj^s  of  self  respect  by  leaving 
nniioticed  the  insinuation  conveyetl  in  tliis  passable.  It  is  no  doubt 
true — and  to  persons  posscssini;  ordinary  acjjuaintanco  with  the  details 
of  administrative  government,  it  cannot  appear  surprising;— that,  in 
addition  to  the  published  instructions  to  governors  of  c(d(»nies.  other 
instnictions  were  sent  from  time  to  time,  some  of  them  explanatory  of 
those  published  instruction^,  others  su|)pleme',itary  to  them,  as  cases 
iU'ose  to  show  the  ne^'essity  of  such  explanations  and  additions.  Such 
ol  these  as  weie  sent  to  the  jjovernor  of  Victoria,  and  hav(^  any  bear- 
in},' on  the  umtter,  are  now  laid  before  the  tribunal  in  the  Ap|teiidix.' 
Ainon^  these  instructions  will  bo  found  ouo  dated  the  12th  of  Decem- 
lier,  18CtJ,  which  inclo.sed  copies  of  certain  correspondence  respecting 
the  visit  of  the  Alabama  to  the  Cape  of  (rood  Hope.  All  the  material 
papers  in  this  correspondence  have  already  been  laid  befon^  the  tribu- 
nal.^ Amon^  them  will  be  found  a  rei>ort  from  the  Kn^^lish  law-otlicers 
of  the  Crown,  in  whi<!h  the  foUowiu};  passage  occurs: 

With  icHiK'ct  t<»  tli«  Alabama  lierm-lf,  \v«)  ar«  clearly  of  opinion  tliut  nfitlicr  \\w 
governor  nor  any  otlit-r  authority  at  tht-  Ctipt;  could  cxcicitsc  any  Jurisiliition  over  Ikt. 
and  tliat,  whatever  was  her  iireviouH  history,  they  were  bound  to  treat  her  an  a  Nliipot' 
wiir  belonKinj;  to  a  helllj^erent  power. 

It  will  have  been  seen  that  these  last  words  were  reproduced  in  the 
answer  returned  to  the  representations  of  the  United  States  consul  at 
Melbourne,  on  the  30th  of  January,  180.1.'  That  these  were  the  par- 
ticular pai>ers  alluded  to  by  the  chief  secretary  is  moreover  obvious 
from  the  context  of  the  speech,  iu  which  he  mentions  that  the  j>overn- 
mont  had  "  before  them  the  case  of  a  vessel  in  exactly  the  same  posi- 
tion as  the  Shenandoah.''  It  may  not  be  within  the  knowledge  of  the 
tribunal  that  the  reports  of  the  English  law-ottieers  of  the  Crown  to 
Her  -Majesty's  secretary  of  state  for  foreign  affairs  have,  according  to 
invariable  custom,  been  hitherto  considered  as  documents  of  a  strictly 
confidential  nature,  to  be  made  known  to  uone  but  the  executive  otli- 
cers  of  the  government.  This  rule  has  now  for  the  first  time  been  de 
parted  from,  through  the  anxiety  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty's  govern- 
ment that  the  arbitrators  should  have  before  them  all  materials  which 
could  be  made  available  for  emibling  them  to  form  a  correct  judgment 
on  the  (piestions  submitted  to  them. 

Into  the  subseipient  history  of  the  Shen.andoah  it  is  needless  to  enter. 
It  has  been  accurately  told  in  the  British  Case,  and  tlu'ie  is  dearly 
nothing  in  it  which  could  impose  any  responsibility  whatever  on  this 
country. 

The  United  States  must  be  well  aware  that,  on  account  of  the  original 
outfit  of  the  Shenandoah,  they  have  no  just  claini  against  (Ireat 
Britain.  A  sense  of  this,  indeed,  plainly  betrays  itself  in  the  Case. 
An  effort  is  therefore  made  to  found  a  claim  upon  the  circumstance 
that  this  vessel  was  admitted,  in  a  remote  colony  of  the  British  Empire, 
to  the  ordinary  hospitalities  of  a  neutral  port,  and  upon  what  occurred 
during  her  visit  there.    The  charges  which  it  is  endeavored  to  establish 


22  a— n 


'  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  v,  pp.  125-131. 
2  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  3UU,  :IU6,  312,  :t22. 
« Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  593. 


'<     1 


338 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON. 


nLriiiiisf:  tlie  avitlioritios  of  the  colony,  nm}  thronjjh  tliem  njjaiiist 
jlOl]    (Irt'iit   Britain,,  are,  in  sub.Siance,  tvo.     One  is,  tiiat  slic  •was 

Htirt't'TdMl  to  ifpjiir  !i  »r  steam  niachinery,  wliich  is  a(ln)itt<'(l  to 
liave  been   in  need  of  repair,  althon'jli   (it  is  obj^'cted)  she  was  not 
shown  to  bo  nnseaworthy  as  a  sailinjj  ship.     It  wonhl  be  ditlitMiIt  to  im. 
ajiine  a  nuHth  less  reasonable  coniphiint.    The  Cv^Ionial  antliorities  wcro 
riyiit  in  yivin*;  tiiis  i)erniission,  whicli  was  {^iven  at  IJrest  to  the  Florida, 
in  sjtite  of  tb«'  renionstran(;es  of  the  United  States  minister,  an<l  winch 
is  thoion<4hly  >.tnctioned   l)y  cnstoni.    They  wonld,  indeed,  have  been 
;»niity  ol"  a   i-ei)roliensil»'M    rciiisal  of  oidinai-y   lios)>)tality  if  tlu'y  had 
nof   <;iv('n   it.     Tlie  otluT  eliar^^e  is,  that  the  vessol  obtained  in  the 
])oit  some  a(blition  to  Iter  crew,  a n«i  that  this  was  done  with  tla- con 
ni Vance   of    the   anthoritics   of    the    colony.     As    tin:  cliiet  proof  of 
connivance,  it  has  been  insisted  tliat  the  ship  renniined  in  the  ])ort,  nn- 
der^oinj;'  repairs,  a  few  day:    longer  than  the  Uiiited  States  snppose  to 
ha\  e  been  absolutely  Jiecessary.     Age.iii,  tct  j)rovo  even  this,  wliieli.  if 
established,  would  bi-  not  merely  inconclusive,  but  almost  immateriitl. 
there  is  a  struji^le  ajjainst  plain  facts;   M!>d  there  is  an  endeavor  to 
substitute  conjectural  estimates  for  those  nmde  on  the  spot,  and  at  the 
time;   circumstances  are  passed  over  which  should   hav<'    been  taken 
into  '(('('ount;  there  are  imputations  of  inattention   where  tiiere  was 
noiu',  and  su;;;4»'stioi!s  of  Inul  j'aith,  to  which  the  best  answer  is  silence. 
Such  is  the  cht-raeter  of  th<»  aij^'ument  of  the  United  States  on  this 
point.     It  ha.s  been  answered  step  by  .^tep.     But  Jler  iMaj(-.'^ty's  };oven; 
ment  <leems  it  rjjfht  to  add  one  obser\ation,  the  trutli  of  which  will 
hardly  l»e  dispnied  in  any  nmritime  country.     The  a<;t  here  alleufed— 
the  ri'cruitnMMit  ('seamen  in  a  neutral  piul — is  one  whi(th  is  ditllcult  ami 
well  ni;Ah  imposoble  for  the  U>cal  authorilies  to  prevent  altoj»ether,  l»y 
any  reasonable  precautio'.s  of  llieir  own,  which  would  not  be  deemeil 
oflensive  by  a  belligerent,     it  is  necessary,  therefor*",  either  wholly  to 
exclude  belli<>,<M'enfc  ships  of  war  from  access  to,  and  refujye  in,  neutral 
harbors,  or  to  place  some  reliance  on  the  word  of  the  conunandiu,n  ol)i 
cer,  and  on  thai  honorable  understanding'  which,  while  it  surrouuls  tlic 
ves.sel  on  her  entrance  with  ,i  peculiar  immunity  from  the  exercise  of 
local  Jiii'isdictiou,  binds  her  at  the  same  tin)e  to  n'spect  the  sovereiyiity 
and  neutral  rij^hts   jf  the  nation  who.se  hospitality  she  enjoys.     It  is 
])ractical!,y  necessary  to  rely  much  on  this  umhM-standiuj;,  and  it  is  cus- 
tomary to  do  so.     It  has  \w\vr  been  held  that  the  duty  of  the  neutnil 
authorities  is  to  surrcuind  a  Ibreij;!!  ship  of  war  with  .«pies;  to  (1()*>-  tiio 
steps  of  her  officers,  refuse  credit  to  their  solemn  assurances,  or  issue 
wairatds  apiinst  them  on  sus|ticion.     No  neutral  power  would  uiidci- 
take  to  do  .his,  and  no  belli/'erent  would  en«lure  it  i)atiently.    (ircat 
Jbitain  has  iievi'r  hitherto  hesitated  to  trust  American  oHicers,  as  she 
trusts  those  of  other  «H)un(nes;  and  she  did  not  deem  her.self  bouud  to 
withdraw  that  customary  con!idenc(!  f'oni  ollieers  whom  civil  di.s-sensjou 
had  armed  ajiainst  theii'  own   country,  and  who  were  enyuyed  in  an 
uuhiippy  contest,  which  she  siucertly  deplored. 


1102] 


*PART  viir. 


THE  CLARENCE.  TACONY.  AIICIIKR,  TISrALOOSA.  TALLAHASSEE, 
CHICKAMALGA,  AiND  RETHIBl TION. 


In  respect  of  rlieso  vessels  (with  i)erl»a))s  one  exeejition,  whieli  will  be 
notiijed  presently)  no  fuilnre  of  duty  on  the  part  of  (Ireat 


run  VIII.-  rill 


J{ritain    is  expressly  or   distinctly  alleged    by  the    United  AM;;!r.ulrru";,: 
(States.     As  to  the  first  four,  it  is  oidy  insisted  that,  as  they  '""" 
were  armed  and  employed  as  tenders  by  vessels  in  respect  of  which 
tliore  is  allej-ed  to  have  lieen  a  lailnre  of  duty,  '".eat    Britain  ought  to 
be  charged  with  the  losses  occasioned  by  them  to  the  United  IStates. 

TIIK   TALLAHASSEE  AND   ClIICKAMAtaA. 

FJer  ^Majesty's  fiovernnient  Inis  litth;  informat;on  respect inf>'  the  ear- 
lier history  of  these  tw«>  vessels,  lieyond  what  may  be  };ath-     n...  r.ii«h»» 

ered  from  <locununts  presenteil  to  the  arbitrators  by  the  ""i'l"' •""""""' 
United  States.  I'rom  this  nuurce  it  may  be  colleeted  that  they  were 
two  out  ol"  a  number  of  steamers  built  in  Enjjland  foi-  blockade-runnin;*', 
and  all  alike,  or  nearly  alike,  in  constru<'tion.  They  were  built  for 
■spee<l,  with  d<»ul»le  screws.  There  is  no  pretense  for  sayinj;-  that  either 
of  them  was,  either  wholly  or  in  part,  specially  adapted  within  Hritish 
territory  for  warlike  use. ;  xntv  has  this  been  alleged  by  the  United  States. 
It  is  clear  that  they  were  without  any  sucli  special  adaptation.  IJoth  of 
tlieiu  had  been  noticed,  before  they  originally  leit  England,  by  the 
United  States  cunsulav  otlicers,  who  woe  always  on  tlu'  watch  to  detract 
any  indi(rations  of  sucii  an  object  or  purpose;  but  as  to  neither  of  them 
was  the  least  suspicion  expressed  that  she  was  titted  or  intended  for  any 
employment  otiuii  than  bhx-kad*'  running.  The  Tallahassee  is,  indeed,. 
in  the  Case  of  the  United  »States,  alleged  to  have  been  •••  litted  out  to  phiy 
the  part  of  a  privatei'r ; "  an«l,  for  the  evideiu*e  of  this,  the  arbitrators 
•Mv  referred  to  a  letter  from  .Mr.  Adams  to  Karl  Kussell.  It  might  have 
b;'ei.'  Inferreil  from  such  a  reference  that  Mr.  Adams  iiad  as.sertetl  the 
tad,  or  at  least  «'Xjuessed  a  suspicion  of  it,  at  the  time.  Ibit  the  letter 
isdated  loth  March.  US(m,  when  it  had  become  well  known  that  the  ship 
had  for  a  short  (leriod  been  taken  from  her  usual  employment  and  used 
in  making  prizes. 

AltluMigh  the  assertion  mentioned  above  has  been  mach",  unsupported 
by  a  particle  of  evidence,  res|)ecting  the  original  outlit  of  the  Tallahas- 
see, the  United  States  have  not  added  to  it  aiu)ther,  w  ithont  which  it 
is  mot  relevant  to  the  (luestions  at  issue  :  nanu'ly,  that  the  Hritish  gov- 
ernment had  reasonable  ground  to  believt^  that  the  \  essel  was  iriten<ied 
to  be  used  for  war.  It  would  be  of  no  avail  to  show  (were  it  iK»ssible  to 
do  so)  that  the  Tallahassee  was  fitted  for  war  (which  she  was  not)  or  in 
tended  to  be  iiseil  for  war,  (of  whkh.  again,  there  is  no  proof  at  all,)  uu- 
lo.ss  it  could  also  be  shown  that  the  government  of  Great  Uritaiu  was 


340 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


^^■■ 


h  i- 


or  ought  to  have  been,  in  some  way  cognizant  of  that  intention.  Tint 
this  is  nowhere  so  much  as  alleged  or  suggested  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States. 

As  these  vessels  were  not  constructed  or  specially  adapted  for  war, 
so  neither  were  thej-  arrned,  fitted  out,  or  cfpiipiied  for  war  within  liijt- 
ish  territory.  They  were  fitted  out  for  a  quite  different  purpose.  There 
is,  indeed,  so  Car  as  Her  Majesty's  government  is  aware,  no  evidence 
that  they  were  built  for  th«  confederate  government  at  all ;  althoufrli, 
like  some  other  vessels  wliicih  had  (niginally  been  built  for  private  trade, 
they  were  afterward  found  in  the  hands  of  that  government. 

In  the  summer  of  l.S<}4,  when  the  greater  part  of  the  southern  sea- 
coast  had  fallen  into  the  han<ls  of  the  United  States,  and  access  to  the 
remaining  ports  of  the  confederacy  (now  more  effectively  blockaded) 
was  becoming  a  matter  of  greater  an<l  greater  difiiculty,  theconfVderate 
government  a  PI  )ears  to  havetricd  th<M'.\perimentof  putting  guns  intooiie 
or  two  blockade-running  ships  and  sending  them  out  to  cruise.  Tiic 
only  vessels  with  which  this  experiment  was  tried,  so  far  as  Her 
[lOiJJ  Majesty's  government  is  awiiic,  were  *  the  Atlanta  and  Edith, 
which  were  armed  and  commissioned,  one  after  the  other,  under 
the  names  of  the  Tallahassee  and  (Miickamauga.  That  the  resolution 
was  fornied,  in  the  case  of  the  Chick.niiauga  at  any  rate,  after  the  ship 
had  conie  into  the  possession  of  the  conftMlerategoveinment,  and  in  con- 
se<p\eiuM'  of  her  being  found  fast  under  st(iam  as  a  bloekad<*-runner,  is 
admitted  in  the  Case  of  the  Uniteil  States.  The  expedient  ot  thus  arm- 
ing and  commissioning  men;hant-ships  thus  bought  or  hired  for  the  juir- 
j)ose  had  been  resorte*!  to  by  the  (rovernment  of  tln'  United  States  on  a 
very  large  scale  at  the  commencenuMit  and  during  the  earlier  part  (►f  the 
war.  Vessels  of  all  sorts  and  sizes,  which  coidd  be  Tuade  suitable  (to 
borrow  an  expression  from  the  Case  of  the  United  States)  for  •'  the  sort 
of  war  carrie<l  on"  by  that  goverinnent,  were  luocured  by  scores,  and 
employed  as  fast  as  they  could  be  found. 

But  neither  the  Tallahassee  nor  the  Chickamauga  was  found  well  fitted 
for  this  new  employment.  The  latter  appears,  from  the  stati'uients  of 
the  Unite<l  States,  to  have  been  only  fifteen  days  at  sea.  The  former, 
after  a  cruise  of  about  thiee  weeks,  was  "  found  to  be  ill-adapted  Ibr 
the  purposes  of  war,"  aiul  sold  to  a  private  merchant,  who  gave  her  the 
ruime  of  the  Cliameh>o»i.' 

It  is  represen(e«l  in  theCaseof  the  Uiiit«'d  States  that  the  Tallahassee, 
before  her  reconversion,  cruised  for  a  short  tinu»  tinder  the  name  of  tiio 
Olustee.  TluMc  is  no  eviden«'e,  however,  of  the  identity  of  the  Talla- 
hassee with  the  Olustee,  be>oiid  a  statement  by  one  Jioreham,  whose 
ship  was  captured  by  the  Olustee,  that  his  ship's  carpenter,  wlio  h;i(l 
previously  been  captured  by  the  Tallahuswe,  thought  they  were  the 
same.* 

The  visit  of  the  Chickamauga  to  liernuida  will  be  noticed  in  a  subse- 
quent se(^tion.  Here  it  is  enough  to  say  that  the  Ignited  States  are  in 
err(»r  as  to  the  accommodation  obtain<'<l  by  her  at  that  <'olony  aiid  the 
coal  shipped  there. 

The  United  States  notice  the  facility  with  which  one  of  these  vessels 


'  Mr.  WilkiiiNoii  to  Mr.  (iilbort,  Ai)|H>iii1ix,  vol.  v,  ji.  151.  The  Atliiiitii  liroiinlit  ciiriin 
from  WiliiiiiiKloii  to  lk'rinu<la  early  in  i'lily,  \tH\A,  aiwl  elenred  outward  anaiii  with 
ciifKo,  UHa  iiu'reliaiit-diip,  iiiiiiRMliatidy  afterward.  At  (lie  einl  of  .Inly  or  bejjiiiniiijrof 
AuKU8t  hIio  may  have  been  ariniul  at  Wilmington,  and  dispatcluMl  tiiencc  an  the  Talla 
haHHeo;  and  wlie  iH  said  by  the  Unit«d  .States  to  have  returned  to  Wilmington  on  tlii' 
2r»t1i  of  AiignHt.  % 

"Appendix  to  the  Case  of  the  United  States,  vol.  vi,  p.  732. 


COrXTER   CASE    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


341 


(the  Talltvhfissee)  was  reconverted  into  a  ship  of  commerce,  in  wliicli 
cliaiacter  she  was  afterward  sutfereil  to  enter  and  remain  in  Britisli 
l»orts;  and  it  appears  to  he  suj»fjested  tliat  this  onjjht  to  have  heen  in 
some  way  jnevented  hy  Her  Majesty's  jiovernment.  In  the  ease  of  this 
vessel,  the  (piestion  whether  the  lientenant  jjovernor  of  Jiermnda  had 
acted  rightly  in  treatinj[>:  her  as  no  h)nger  a  ship  of  war  was  referred  to 
tlie  hiw-oHlcers  of  the  Crown,  who  reported  Ah  follows:  • 

With  reHpttct  to  the  first  c|neHtioii  (toiitaiiu'd  in  tlit>  (liH|)nteli  IVoiii  tlu«  li<-iitoiiniit-KOV- 
ornor  of  Heniuulii,  we  iiio  ol' oiiiiiioii  tliat  ]u«  excrcist'd  ii  somid  diNrrctioii  in  trciitiiij! 
tiir  Clianudcon  (ut'ter  liu  had  Hatisfx-tl  hiins<>it'  of  tlie  truth  of  tli**  rciiriMcntations 
imult'  by  h»;r  master)  as  a  nirrchaiit-vi-ssel  lielonninj;  to  the  country  of  one  of  tins  l»;'l- 
lip'rents.  It  is  conipi-tcnt  to  tiio  ^ioveniincnt  of  either  liellivferent  to  sell  or  transfer  a 
hliip  of  war  to  a  privat»i  merchant,  or  to  elianye  the  eharat^ter  of  a  vessel  from  that  of 
a  ship  of  war  to  that  of  a  merchant-vessel,  if  the  j;overnment  chose  to  trade  on  iUi 
own  accmint. 

To  the  second  (piestion,  we  answer  that  the  merchant-vessels  helon<iin<j  to  the  citizens 
of  litith  hellinereiits,  and  rej;ist<'red  in  their  ports,  onjj;ht  to  lie  admitte<l  to  the  harhors 
(if  lltr  Majesty  on  the  same  footin^j.  The  absence  of  a  f'-  •  al  reco;jnition  hy  Her 
Miijtsty  t)f  the  Confederate  Slates  does  not  alVect  the  principle  <f  strict  neutrality  upon 
■■vliicii  tlit^  vessels  of  both  belligerents  are  so  admitted.' 

A  similar  ([uestion  was  raised  when  she  came  to  Liveri>ool,  and  was 
resolved  in  the  same  way. 

It  is  uudonbtetlly  true  that  vessels,  not  orifj^inally  desijyned  for  war, 
which  have  been  temporarily  employed  for  that  jmrpose,  like  the  two 
vessels  in  question,  may  be  very  easily  reconverted  into  ships  of  com- 
merce; but  neutral  powers  cannot  be  I'alled  upon  to  e.xchule  su<'h  a 
vessel  frori  their  ports  on  account  of  lu'r  former  employment,  nor  to 
treat  her  otlierwis«»  than  as  a  ship  of  (lommerce,  if  they  have  no  reason 
to  doubt  tlie  fact  that  she  is  no  loiiy;«'r  commissioned  and  armed  for  war. 
The  vessels  armed  and  commissioned  iti  l.S(M  and  IStiL*  by  tln^  (Jovern- 
meiit  <»*■  the  United  States  were  at  liberty,  when  that  employment  was 
ovei  .<•  seturn  to  their  orijjimtl  trade;  and  for  a  neutral  j^overnment  to 
refuse  i<»  treat  tluMu  either  as  ships  of  war  when  in  commission,  or  as 
ships  of  commerce  afterward,  would  have  been  wronj-;  f(U-  exactly  the 
siime  reasons  whi<'h  woiild  hiive  nuuhi  such  a  refusal  wronj;  in  the  case 
of  the  Sumter,  ((ribraltar,)  or  of  the  Tallahassee,  (Chameleon.) 

The  arbitrators  will  look  in  vain,  in  the  case  of  the  I'nited  States,  for 
any  failure  of  duty  charged  against  (Ireat  Ibitain  in  respect  of 
[104]  either  of  tlu'.se  vessels.  It  is  not  alleginl  •that,  in  res[»ect  of 
either  of  them,  this  government  failed  to  exercise  due  diligence 
to  prevent  a  violation  of  any  obligation  specific*!  in  the  thre«'  rides,  or 
ot  any  other  neutral  duty.  The  United  States  seem  to  have  foiuul  them- 
selves unable  to  make  any  definite  charge;  yet  they  Ui'vertheless  ask 
the  arbitrators  to  hold  (Ireat  Ibitain  "responsible  for  the  acts*'  of  both 
these  ships,  and  to  award  to  the  United  States,  on  account  of  them, 
compensation  «al<ulated  on  th<!  .same  basis  as  in  the  ca.ses  of  the  Ala- 
liaiiia  it.self. 

lltr  Majesty's  government  has  here  no  charge  to  meet,  no  argument 
to  answer;  and  it  has  a  right  to  call  upon  the  tribunal  to  dismiss  at 
oiiee  these  utterly  groundless  claims. 

THE    RETItniUTION. 


We  now  arrive  at  the  case  of  the   {etribntion.    The  account  given  of 
this  vessel  is,  that  she  was  built  in  the  State  of  New  York; 
was.  in    IHIIl,  seized  by  the  <!oiifederitre  government;    was 
converted  from  a  steatiu'r  into  a  sailing  ship  in  the  waters  of  North  Car 

'Appendix  to  llntish  < 'ase,  vol.  v,  p.  I.'):!. 


342 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


|:    ^ 

;?il 

K'y^  '.'I 


'  [>      ^ 

(  '     t 


oliiia,  and  tben  nrined  and  employed  by  that  government  as  a  criiisor. 
It  is  not  alleged  that  she  ever  received  any  outfit  or  eqnipnient  in  or 
from  Uritish  territory.  What  is  alleged  is  merely  this,  that  on  one 
occasion  she  took  a  prize,  (the  Hanover,)  captured  by  her  near  Siiu 
Domingo,  to  Long  Cay,  an  island  of  the  Haliama  gr«»up,  "and  tlicic 
sold  the  cargo  witliout  prey  ions  Judicial  process;"  and  that,  on  anotlicr 
occasion,  the  Emily  Fisher,  a  juize  captured  "  off  Castle  Island,"  (oin*  of 
the  Bahamas,)  "  was  taken  to  Long  Cay,  and,  notwithstanding  the  pro. 
lest  of  the  master,  and  in  the  presen«;e  of  a  British  magistrate,  was 
despoiled  t)t'  her  cargo,  a  portion  of  which  was  lande*!,  and  the  balanco 
willfully  destroyed.  Upon  the  strength  of  thesis  allegations  alone,  tlie 
United  States  ask  the  arbitrators  to  hold  Clreat  JUitain  "  responsil)k» 
for  the  acts"  of  the  Ketributiim.'  Claims  for  the  value  of  prizes  ciij)- 
tured  by  her  are  inserted  in  the  general  list  of  claims;  and  she  is  not 
distinguished  from  the  other  vessels,  in  the  vain  "pursuit"  of  wliich 
the  Navy  of  the  United  States  is  represented  as  having  been  engaged. 
This  isaskecl,  "not  only  for  the  general  reasons  heretofore"  (in  tiieCaso 
of  the  United  States)  "  mentioned  as  to  this  class  of  vessels,  but  beeaiisc, 
in  the  ciase  of  each  of  the  captured  vessels  above  nanu'd,  the  acts  coni- 
])laine<l  of  were  done  within  Her  Majesty's  Jurisdiction."  The  JJritish 
government  is  not  eivuctly  informed  what  geiu'ral  reasons  for  (lemandiii;^ 
compensation  from  (Ireat  Britain  are  considered  by  tiie  Unite<l  States 
to  be  applicable  to  the  class  of  vessels  to  which  the  Retribution  l)el(>nge(l 
— that  is  to  say,  vessi'ls  builfc  in  the  United  States,  wholly  arnu'd,  fitted 
out,  ami  commissioned  within  confederate  territory,  and  never  even 
furnished  with  coal  in  any  British  pcu't;  but  it  is  right  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  tiibunal  to  tliis  admission,  that  the  claims  of  the  United 
States  are  founded  on  reasons  which  they  supi>ose  to  extend  to  vessels 
of  this  latter  class. 

Tlu!  British  govtMiiment  might  fairly  decline  to  enter  into  any  disotis- 
.sion,  before  the  tribunal,  of  claims  sucli  as  those  made  on  account  of  tliis 
■jhip,  since  they  are  obviously  of  ailifferent  class  from  those  "  generically 
km>wn  as  the  Alabama  claims,"  and  ('annot  properly  be  reckoned  anion},' 
them.  Her  Majesty's  government  prefers,  however,  to  state  the  facts. 
inaccurately  referred  to  by  the  United  States,  so  far  as  it  is  ac(iuaintt'd 
v/ith  them. 

The  case  of  the  Hanover  appears  to  have  been  as  follows  :  In  Decem- 
ber, 18(i2,  a  schooner  arrived  at  the  port  of  Fortum^  Lsland,  or  Long  Cay, 
and  was  rep()rt<'d  by  her  master  (or  the  person  who  appearetl  to  be  and 
acted  as  such)  to  have  run  ashore — no  uncommon  accitlmt  in  those  seas 
— on  a  neighlxuing  i.^det,  and  to  be  in  distress.  Lon;;  Cay  is  a  small 
iiM.U'.il  or  stiip  of  land,  belonging  to  the  Archiiwdago  of  the  Bali.iinas, 
and  about  two  hundied  and  forty  miles  from  tin-  seal  «d  government. 
From  the  snip's  papers,  whitdi  were  re^ulai,  it  appeared  tliat  she  was 
the  schooner  lIano\er,  boun<l  from  linstou  to  Havana,  or  to  st- -k  ii 
market;  the  master  further  stating  th.it  his  instructions  were  toilisposc 
of  the  cargo,  purchase  with  the  proceeds  a  cargo  of  sail,  and  hy  to  run 
tin'  blockade.  The  master's  name  was  shown  by  the  ship's  papers  to  be 
Washington  Case;  and  it  was  in  that  name  that  the  pers»Mi  \\\h^  "•-pre- 
sented liimself  to  Ih'  master  signeil  tin-  manit«*st,  bills  u|  hulin*:.  ami 
other  (locnnn  nts,  entered  his  vesst*!  at  ibe  revenue  ottu'c,  i'ud  t^'ial!> 
cleared  her,  ha\ing  loaded  a  cargo  ot  sxtt  at  Long  Ca\.  '"''  i  ■u-'^ 
trale  of  the  distrn-t,  who  r<'sides  in  tli.*  is'-uid  of  Iii.ignji,  !  .  iHiiti' 
to  be  at  Long  Cay  at  the  time,  went   to  the  place,  and  «fm'stUMied  tlif     ■      


It 

♦■llfith 

illll'ifCI 

llilVc 

trail  it 
;iliiiiil( 
iiit'iit 

.shall  I 

Ir 
any  ; 


'Caao  of  the  I'mteti  .Slatet*,  pp.  ;W0,  'ML 


w 


COUNTER    CASE    OF   GREAT    BRITAIN. 


a43 


man,  but  had  no  reason  to  doubt  his  idtMitlty  or  the  truth  of  his  story  ; 
nor  was  there,  indeed,  any  eireuinstanee  to  su}?fj;est  a  (h)id)t.  Some  words 
ciisnally  let  fall  by  a  drunken  seaman  after  tiie  supposed  master  had  h*ft 
tlie  island,  (which  he  did  by  another  vessel,  leaving  the  Hanover  under 
tbe  command  of  the  nniti',)  lirst  jjave  rise  to  a  suspi(;ion  that  he  had  been 
passing  under  a  name  which  was  not  his  own  ;  but  there  was  no  reason 
to  suspect  that  the  vessel  had  been  a  prize.  No  intimation  of  the 
[105]  circumstances  ever  *reached  the  colonial  government  till  the  11th 
March,  1803.  A  person  residing  at  Nassau,  us  agent  of  Anjcri- 
can  underwriters,  then  addressed  a  letter  to  the  governor,  stating  that 
the  Hanover  had  been  captured  by  the  Retribution;  aiul  that  the  i>er- 
mn  who  had  represented  Inmself  to  be  Case  was,  in  reality,  oin;  Ijocke, 
otherwise  rarker,  the  captain  of  the  lietribution.' 

It  is  obvious  tliat  these  facts,  assuming  them  to  be  true,  imjiose  no 
liability  on  Her  Majesty's  government.  If  the  orders  of  1st  .Inue,  lS(;i, 
which  forbade  prizes  to  be  brought  into  Dritish  ports,  ha<l  not  been 
issued,  the  Hanover  might  have  been  openly  brought  in  and  her  cargo 
sold  in  the  Jtahamas,  and  the  United  States  would  have  had  no  right  to 
complain.  The  captain  of  a  (ionfederate  ship  contrived,  by  forgciy  and 
fraudulent  personation,  to  violate  these  orders,  and  by  so  doing  rendered 
himself  amenable  to  Hritish  law.  Locke  was  afterward  twice  arreste<l 
at  Nassau  for  t'iis  ott'ense.  On  the  tirst  occasion  he  forfeited  his  bail 
and  left  the  island;  on  the  second  he  was  brcught  to  trial,  l>nt  was 
acquitted  for  want  of  evidence.  Proof  of  the  facts  which  it  wj>s  neces- 
sary to  establish  could  only  be  given  by  some  one  who  had  b'vni  on 
board  of  the  Hanover,  or  of  the  Retribution,  at  the  time  when  the  cap- 
ture took  place;  and  although  the  agent  of  the  Amerii^an  underwriters, 
actiiigat  the  instance  of  the  attorney-geiu'ral,  siMit  to  the  United  States 
to  endeavor  to  secure  the  attiMnlance  of  tin;  master  or  some  of  the  crew 
of  the  Hanover,  no  such  testimony  could  be  obtained.^ 

It  may  be  adde«l  that,  while  Loitke  was  in  jnison  awaiting  his  trial, 
an  appli(!ation  was  made  by  the  (rovernment  of  the  United  States  for 
his  extradition,  on  a  clmrge  of  his  having  been  concerned  in  an  alleged 
act  of  piracy,  having  no  connection  with  the  case  of  the  Hano\  er.  lOarl 
liusseli  wrote  in  reply  : 

It  aiipcaiH  to  Her  MiiJi'styV  jjuvcrmiiciit  that  tin'  United  Statos  fidvcrniiu'iit,  aii'  iiot 
r'lititlt'd  to  olttjiiii  the  cxtradit ion  oC  I/ockc  until  In*  shall  havt-  Iiclmi  tried  tor  tin  otleiisf'ti 
all<';rcd  tt)  ljii\'f  ljt!('ii  coiiiiiiitted  by  liiin  ii;{iiiii.st  British  law,  and,  if  conviclrd,  siiall 
liavi'  iindtT^on*'  any  scntcncf  which  may  ln!  ))asst;d  upon  iiiiu  lint  lier  Majrsty'H 
;:iivtrnin«'nt  are  •Jiiwilliny;  that,  in  ronsciiucncc  ot  any  ilrlay  on  tiiis  aiconiit  in  tin' .x- 
tiatlitiou  of  Vernon  liocke,  the  means  of  suppoi'tinj;  the  ;rraver  chaijic  against  him 
slmiild  he  weakened  ;  and  I  liave,  therefore,  to  state  to  yon  that  ifer  Majesty's  vjovciii- 
iiii'Ml  will  waive  their  ri;;ht  to  prosecute  Locke  for  the  olVeiises  of  conspiracy  and  lor- 
;,'iMy,  if  tins  evich'uce  upon  the  charges  arisin;.' (int  of  the  seizure  of  liie  Chesapeako 
iliall  prove  to  bo  HuOicicnt  to  justify  cxfraditicu  by  the  {^ovcruuH'Ut  of  tiie  jlalianias.' 

It  does  not  appear  that  the  Government  of  tins  United  States  made 
any  attempt  to  pioduce  the  (nideiice  which  is  re(piired  by  law  to  sup- 
port a  ilemaiid  for  «'xtradition. 

Of  tlu'caseof  the  ICinily  Fisher,  Her  Majesty's  government  now  hears 
for  the  lii'st  time,  althougli  it  is  said  lo  have  happened  nearly  nine  years 
i'go.  No  complaint  appears  to  have  been  madt^  to  the  colonial  go\eiii- 
nieiit  about  this  vessel  ;  and  tio  intimation  that  anything  illegal  had 
oiiiured  in  reliition  to  her  seems  to  have  l)een  given  10  tlie  atlorney- 
yoiieral  or  any  olllcial  coniHMited  with  the  iidministratioa  ol  criminal 


,* 


'  Appondix  to  Itritish  Case,  vol.  v,  i»p.  li?,  I6f>. 
Mbhl.,  p.  1H7. 
Mbid.,  p.  Itiiu 


344 


TREATY   OF   WASHINGTON. 


;:  I 


I.    ."*4  5 


law  in  tlie  colony,  altliongli  the  ajtent  f<»r  Amoriran  nn«lprwrit(^r.s,  wlioso 
duty  it  would  have  been  to  brinjjf  tbrwani  the  case,  was,  during  tlie  \»'ai 
1S(»;{,  in  constant  eoninuiuication  with  the  attorney-jj;eneial  in  leleivnce 
to  that  of  the  Hanover.  The  then  <;olle(!tor  at  the  i>ort  ofLoii};  Cay  is 
now  dead;  and  the  time  is  past  when  authentic  inrorniation  of  the  facts 
could  be  obtained.'  Evidence  produced  under  su<h  circunistaiu'cs  oujriit 
not  (if  received  at  all)  to  be  accepted  without  very  close  scrutiny.  Tlio 
evidence  otfered  by  the  United  States  is  that  of  the  owners  of  tlu'  ship, 
(who  were  not  present,  and  could  have  no  personal  knowledfje  of  tiio 
nuitter;)  of  one,  Sampson,  who  lepresents  himself  as  having  been  em- 
I)loyed  at  that  time  as  a  "detective"  in  the  Bahamas  by  the  American 
Government ;  and  of  the  master  of  the  Emily  Fisher.  Sampson  swears 
that  all  the  facts  alleged  res|>ectinjrthe  capture  of  the  Emily  Eisher  and 
tln'  subsequent  transactions  are  true  "  within  his  ])ersonal  knowledge," 
and  that  In*  testified  to  them  in  l.S(M!,  in  a  case  tried  before  a  court  in 
New  .lersey.-  On  reference  to  the  ])ublished  proceedings  of  that  case, 
it  will  appear  that  he  j^ave  no  such  eviden<*e,  although  it  would  have 
been  extiemely  material.  He  then  swore  only  that  he  had  seen  the 
Ketribution  at  Long  Cay,  lying  outside  of  the  Emily  Eisher,  and  had 
been  introduced  "by  an  acting  nmgistrate  at  Long  Cay"  to  iier 
otlicers,  with  whom  he  had  had  '*  a  general  talk  about  the  dillieulty 
with  the  North  and  South.'''  That  he  should  have  had  i>ersonal  knowl- 
edge of  circumstances  w!ii(rh  are  stated  to  have  occurred  at  a  gn'at 

distaiu'e  before  the  two  vessels  arrived  at  Long  Cay,  where  lie 
[100]    was,  is  obviously  im])ossible;  and  *the  AnuMi<*an  liovernment  is 

Avell  aware  that  such  testimony  would  be  at  once  rejected  in  an 
Ameiican  vovAt  a«  it  would  be  in  a  <;ourt  of  (Ireat  ISritain.  The  evi- 
dem;e,  therefore,  rediu-es  itself  to  that  of  Staples,  the  master.  Staples 
alleges  in  ett'ect  that  he  was  caoturetl  off  an  islet  called  Castle  Island, 
nearly  two  days  before  he  arrived  at  Long  Cay  ;  that  his  captor  was  in 
league  with  some  wre<;kers,  (persons  whose  trade  it  is  to  make  prolit  by 
saving  vessels  abaiuloned  or  in  distress,)  and  ran  the  ship  aground, 
when  the  wreckers  took  possession  of  her;  that  she  was  afterward 
taken  to  Long  Cay,  in  (lompany  with  the  Ketribution;  and  that  "he 
(the  master)  Wits  not  able,  win  n  there,  to  obtain  possession  of  the  bri;; 
until  alter  he  had  bargained  with  the  wreckers  to  pay  them  oO  per  cent. 
on  the  cargo  ami  ;i.'irt  per  cent. on  the  vessel ;  when,  after  nmkingaflidavir 
of  his  being  the  niiister,  In*  was  placed  in  possession  by  the  collector, 
and  went  t»n  boanl. '  He  a«l(ls  that  "  he  was  told  by  the  <;aptain  ol  tlie 
Ikctributioii  that  llu>  wreckers  w«Me  to  pay  him  something  handsome, 
and  the  deponent  believes  they  ilid  so;"  and  thai  he  "  was  obliged  to 
accept  the  w  rciki-rs'  terms  at  the  port  of  entry,  because  the  brig  liiy 
under  the  guns  of  the  i>rivateer,  and  the  authorities  ileclared  tlieii  in 
aliilify  to  protcit  him."  lie  was  "told  by  the  authorities  that,  tlioiij;li 
the  law  would  not  ;illow  the  ])iivateei  to  touch  the  biig,  if  he  wished  to 
do  so  they  had  'm>  means  of  preNcnting  hini."^  \Vliat  is  here  allcgtd, 
and  may  l»c  true,  is  a  consjdracy  between  the  captain  of  the  Ketribution 
and  the  wreckers  to  leprc.sent  the  Emily  Fisher  not  as  a  prize  to  iIk' 
]{«'tiil)utioii,  but  as  having  lun  aground  and  been  got  ot!  by  ')'•' 
latter,  and  thus  to  enable  the  wreckers  to  extort  a  large  sahage,  lor 
which  they  we,^e  to  i>ay  a  sum  of  money  to  Locke.  Locke  w«Hild  thns 
be  enabled  t(»  make  i>roHt  by  a  prize  which  he  would  otherwise  ha\i' 


'  Apptiidix  to  Hiitiuli  i':v*i\  i>|i.  17,  2'.i. 

*  A|i|i<'iHli\  ti>  riiHf  of  til*  L'niti'd  Sfiit«».s,  vtil.  vi,  ji.  7'M'). 

•' Aji|M'nili\  In  llrHi.Hli  «  ;(>i'.  vol.  v,  \t.  I'.Mi. 

^  AiiiHMulix  to  C'ui«-  o!  llui  United  StuU'«   vol.  vi,  p.  7',\r^. 


COUNTER   CASE   OF   GREAT   BRITAIN. 


345 


boon  oblifrod  to  roloase  or  dostroy  ;  niul  tlie  fact  of  his  li.nvinjj  roconrso 
to  this  circuitous  sumI  fraiululciit  transaction  proves  that  lie  did  not  ven- 
ture to  attempt  an  actual  sale  of  the  ship  or  vui'ao  even  in  this  remote  and 
unfrequented  spot.  x<«»thin{f  is  said  about  "the  presence  of  u  mnia;is- 
tnite."  Nor  is  anythin;;  said  (which  mijjht  have  been  expected)  about 
a ''protest"  by  the  master;  probably  lie  was  afrai<l  to  make  one  while 
bis  vessel  was  under  the  guns  of  the  Jtctribution,  ay:aiiist  which  the 
"authorities,"  apparently  the  local  revenue  olticer,  t«)hl  liini  it  would  be 
impossible  to  protect  him,  the  port  being  a  very  small  phu-e  in  a  remote 
island.  It  is  not  even  stated  that  he  ever  told  the  authorities  what  lia«l 
occurred  before  his  arrival  at  Lonjj(!ay.  He  paid  thessilvage  demanded, 
regained  his  ship  and  part  of  his  cargo,  part  having  been  stolen  or 
wasted,  and  left  the  island. 

It  is  possible  that,  on  theso  facts,  supposing  them  to  be  true,  the 
owners  of  the  ship  and  cargo  may  have  been  entitled  to  legal  redress 
aynii'St  the  persona  concerned  in  defrauding  them  of  their  property; 
and,  if  so,  they  might  probably  have  obtained  siuth  redress  if  they  had 
taken  the  necessary  steps  at  that  timo,  They  took  no  steps,  however ; 
tbey  did  not  even  make  complaint  or  give  iu)ti<u»  of  what  had  occurrcil 
to  the  colonial  government;  and  now,  nearly  nine  years  afterward, 
v'bcn  authentic  information  cannot  be  obtained,  the  United  States  bring 
forward  this  case,  not  as  a  ground  lor  making  compensation  to  tho 
owners  of  the  Kmily  Fisher  and  her  cargo,  but  in  supp<ut  of  the  grave 
cliarges  against  the  liritish  government  whirdi  they  allege  before  this 
tribunal,  and  of  a  claim  to  hold  (Jrcat  Uritain  liable  for  all  the  acts  of 
tlie  Hetrilmtion.  Jlcr  Majesty's  government  denies  that  the  fa«'ts,  if 
proved,  argue  any  failure  of  international  duty  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain,  or  furnish  any  evideuce  of  such  a  failure. 


g^.. 


l\ 


W  m  r 


■  > 


[107] 


*PART   IX. 


RECEPTION  OF  COiN FEDERATE  CRUISERS  L\  BRITISH  PORTS. 


It  has  been  tlioiiglit  best  to  treat  collectlvelj'  the  various  eomplaints 
Part  i\.-n,r.,.  Scattered  throiighout  the  Case  of  the  United  States,  as  to 
IrluJl^  "!"''t!l^  the  "excessive  hospitality"  wliicli  is  allefjed  to  have  been 
"  ""  extended  in  British  ports  to  the  vessels  of  war  of  the  Con- 

federate States,  in  comparison  with  the  "  dis(!onrtesy"  with  which  ves- 
sels of  the  United  States  are  said  to  have  been  treated  under  similar 
circumstances.  Tliese  complaints  maybe  divided  under  three  heads: 
(1)  the  amount  of  supplies  •rranted  to  confederate  cruisers  before  any 
limitation  was  placed  on  sucli  supi>lies  by  the  regulations  issued  by  the 
British  jjovernment  on  the  ."Ust  of  January,  ISOli;  (2)  tlu^  alleged  dis- 
regard of  those  regulations  in  the  case  of  confederate  vessels;  and  (.'}) 
their  alleged  rigid  enforcement  against  vessels  of  war  of  the  United 
States. 

As  regards  the  first  question,  there  were  but  two  vessels  of  war  of  the 
Confederate  States  which  visited  Ibitish  ports  before  the  issue  of  the 
regulations  of  .January  31,  ISO:*— the  Sumter  and  the  Nashville.  Tiio 
facts  as  to  these  two  vessels  have  already  been  statetl,  and  it  is  only 
necessary  to  add  a  few  words  to  show  how  their  proceedings,  coupled 
with  those  of  the  United  States  ships,  and  the  representations  of  the 
United  States  Government,  led  to  the  adoption  of  the  regulations. 

The  reception  of  the  Sumter  in  the  ports  of  Brazil,  ami  of  the  neigh- 
Th.  s,,mt.r  nni  boHug  posscssioiis  of  (Ircat  liritain  and  the  Xetherlands, 
K,-i,v,iip.  i„  jiijj  summer  and  autumn  of  18(il,  had  given  rise  to  warm 

remonstrances  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  and  they  had  urged  oii 
each  of  the  three  jmwers  the  expetliency  of  placing  restrictions  on  tiie 
hospitality  to  be  accorded  to  what  they  termed  the  "  piratical"  vessels 
of  the  insurgents.  The  governments  of  Brazil  and  of  the  Netherlands, 
no  less  than  that  i»f  Great  Britain,  had  nniintained  that  the  Sumter  must 
be  regar<led  as  a  vessel  of  war  of  a  belligerent  power,  and  that  whatever 
restrictions  might  be  [)laced  on  the  stay  of  such  vessels  in  their  ports 
must  be  api»lied  equally  to  the  vessels  of  war  of  the  United  States.  Mr. 
Seward,  however,  continued  to  press  the  suggestion.  Lord  llussell  ex- 
pressly stated  to  Mr.  Adams  on  the  IDth  December,  18<51,  that  the  rea- 
son why  no  such  limitation  had  hitherto  been  enforced  by  Great  Britain 
was  that  it  might  have  seefued  churlish  toward  vessels  of  the  United 
States  Navy.' 

On  the  2tth  .January,  18G2,  Mr.  Adams  wrote  to  Lis  Government,  an- 
n(mncing  that  the  Sumter,  after  repairing  at  Cadiz,  had  goiu»  into  the 
port  of  Gibraltar;  and  he  added,  "This  tendency  to  take  refuge  in  Brit- 
ish ports  is  becoming  so  annoying  to  the  government  here,  that  I  shall 
not  be  supprised  if  the  limit  of  twenty-four  hours'  stay  be  soon  adoitted."' 

'  ApiH'iidix  to  Ciise  of  the  United  States,  vol,  i,  p.  344. 
^Exetiitivo  Docuuieuts,  If^Gl-'U'j,  No.  104,  p.  70. 


COUNTER   CASE   OF   GREAT   BRITAIK. 


347 


>>ws  had  about  the  same  timoi  boon  reciolvod  of  the  attempt  to  form  a 
coal  depot  for  the  United  States  Navy  at  Nassau,  and  of  the  presenco 
at  that  port  of  a  vessel  of  war  of  the  ITnitojl  States,  \vhi<!h,  by  havin^jf 
its  steam  uj),  constantly  ready  to  stert,  kept  all  the  sliii>pin<r  in  the  port 
in  alarm.  The  Nashville,  which  had  bi'on  in  the  harbor  of  Southamp- 
ton since  the  1*1  st  Novend)er,  had  refitte<l,  and  was  ready  f«»r  sea.  She 
was  closely  watched  by  the  United  States  steamer  Tnscarora,  whose 
(•ominan«ler  was  pursning  the  same  course  as  the  cnptain  of  the  I'lam- 
bcau  at  Nassau,  an<l,  by  keepini<:  his  steam  up  and  haviii;;  slips  on  his 
cal>le,  was  virtually  keepinp;  the  Nashville  blockaded  in  a  neutral  port.' 
Under  these  circumstanctos,  the  British  y:«>vernmcnt  determined  that 
the  Nashville  and  Tuscarora  should  be  desired  to  leave  IJritish  waters 
at  a  date  to  be  tixed,  with  an  interval  of  twenty  four  hours  Ix'tween 
tiu'ir  resjjocitive  departures;  and  a  few  days  afterwards,  on  tln»  .Ust 
January,  H;eneral  rules  were  issued  to  provide  for  siu'h  cases  in  future. 
Captain  Craven,  of  the  Tuscarora,  after  souu»  alter«'ation  with  the 
authorities,  (piitted  the  p(nt  of  S(uithampton,  but  rt'turned  ay:aiu 
[108]  to  Jiritish  waters  in  its  vicinity  Just  as  the  Naslnille  *wiis  leav- 
ing;. He  was  warned  that  he  was  not  to  sail  a^'ain  until  twenty- 
fonr  hours  after  her  ileparturo,  and  complied,  though  complaining:  that 
"a  just  and  ri};id  impartiality  did  not  appear  to  liavt^  been  extended 
towards  him."^  In  a  dispatch  dated  the  7th  February,  l.S(J'J,  an<l  puli 
lislied  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  at  the  time,  but  of 
which  only  a  short  extiact  is  f>iven  in  the  collection  now  api>endetl  to 
their  Case,  Mr.  Adams  reuuirked : 

Tlio  inipresHioii  Ihtc  is  tliat  lie  (Ca|»taiii  Cravon)  allowed  liiinsclf  to  be  coiii|)l»'t<'Iy 
outwitted.  ]It<  will  doulitleM.s  lay  the  blame  ou  tbt^  action  of  tlie  jienple  and  fioverii- 
iiiiat  of  this  country;  my  own  opiniou  \n,  that  if  lie  bad  been  m  little  moic  eool  and 
(|iiiit,  he  wonld  have  faie«l  iM^tter.' 

Mr.  Adams's  anticipations  were  correct,  as  will  appear  from  Captain 
Craven's  report  to  his  Government,  now  itrinted  in  the  Ajjpendix  to 
the  Case  of  the  United  States,^  where  he  complains  bitterly  that  the 
new  re{;ulations  deprive  him  of  "the  ability  of  cruising  on  this  (the 
IJntish)  coast,"  and  speaks  of  the  measures  taken  to  preserve  the  iumi- 
trality  of  liritish  waters  as  "collusion  on  the  part  of  the  authorities, 
to  ellect  the  escape  of  the  privateer." 

It  may  be  as  well  to  mention  at  once  that  the  Nashville  arrived  at 
Bermuda,  on  the  return  voyaj^e  from  Southampton,  belbr*'  the  receipt 
in  that  cohmy  of  the  re<;'ulations  of  daniuiry  -ttl,  l.S(i2.  Thert*  was  at 
the  time  only  a  nuuithly  uuiil  to  Bermuda;  the  rej>ulations  coidd  not 
be  forwarded  until  the  latter  half  of  the  month  of  l<\'l)iiiary,  and  were 
received  there  on  the  oth  March,  some  time  after  the  Nashville  had  left. 
The  statement,  theretbre,  in  the  Case  of  the  United  Statt's,'  that  the 
perniissicm  n'lwu  to  the  Nashville  to  take  on  board  a  supply  of  coal  was 
an  infraction  of  these  rejjulations,  is  erroneous.  They  were,  according 
to  their  terms,  only  to  take  ettect  six  days  after  their  notilication  in 
each  colony,  and  the  jjoveruor  was  not  even  aware  of  their  existence  at 
the  time  of  the  Nashville's  visit. 

From  St)uthami)tou  the  Tuscarora  proceeded  to  Gibraltar,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  wat(thinyf  the  Sumter;  and  there  Captain  Craven  involvetl  him- 
self in  a  dispute  with  the  autliorities.  The  Sumter  had  arrived  in  that 
port  on   the  ISth  of  January,  1802,  before  any  limitation   had  been 

'  Aitpendix  to  Hritiish  Ca«e,  vol.  i,  p.  114. 

-  Appen<li.\  to  Hritisb  Case,  vol.  ii,  pp.  Iii4,  1"2.'>. 

■'  Executive  Documouts,  l8(3l-'G!i,  No.  104,  p.  ".W. 

*  Vol.  vi,  p.  59. 

6  rage  31G. 


'li'a'' 


I  f 


■?'■ 


i.\ 


M 


i 


348 


TREATY   OF    WASHINGTON. 


placed  on  the  Htny  of  vesselH  of  war  of  the  two  helli/jerents  in  P.iitish 
ports.  The  rejjiihitions  of  the  .'Ust  of  .Isiiinary,  lestiietiii^  tlie  sta.v  it( 
8iU!h  v«»SMels  to  twenty- four  houiH,  exeept  in  speeiul  eases,  were  reetivnl 
an<l  |>uhlish(Ml  by  the  governor  on  tlie  11th  of  Febtiniry,  eoiiiiii;;  into 
fonre  on  the  IHth.  Tlie  Tnsearoisi  arrived  on  the  12th,  after  tiie  piiltli- 
eation  of  the  rules,  but  before  they  \uA  come  into  force,  ('opies  of  the 
rules  were  sent  in  identical  letters  to  the  connnanders  of  both  the  Sum 
ter  and  Tiiscarora  on  the  12th  F(>brnary ;  but  it  was  the  (tpiniou  ot  tiu; 
governor' — and  that  opinion  was  contirnied  by  the  home  government— 
that  ntMther  vi'ssel  came  umler  the  operation  of  those  rules,  so  fur  as 
their  stay  in  the  port  was  concerned.  Captain  Craven,  however,  witli- 
out  eommnnii^atiuK  with  the  governor  on  this  point,  withdrew  to  tiH> 
neighboring  Spanish  anchorage  of  Algeciras,  from  whentte  the  boats 
of  the  Tuscarora  passed  bstekward  an«l  forwaril  to  CJibraltar,  rowing; 
round  the  Snmt4>r  on  the  way;  and  he  wrote  to  the  governor  im|uirinn 
why  the  Sumter  was  allowed  to  remain  "  in  undisturbed  possession  ol 
her  ant'horage,''  and  protesting,  "on  behalf  of  the  United  States, 
against  what  appeared  to  be  a  departure  from  the  rules  which  requiro 
that  neutrals  should  be  impartial  and  honest.''  It  «M>uld  not  but  be  e\- 
]ieeted  that  such  an  imputation  should  draw  an  imlignant  reply  from 
tin'  governor.  The  latter  was,  however,  instructed  to  allow  the  boats  ot 
the  Tuscarora  to  (!ome  into  the  port,  provided  they  caused  no  annt»yan(;(! 
to  the  Sumter.^  That  the  Sumter,  when  she  eventually  left  (libraltar 
as  a  nu'r<hant-vessel,  in  a  gale  «)f  winti,  should  have  escaped  (iaptun; 
by  the  vessels  of  war  of  the  United  States,'  is  certainly  not  to  be  at 
tiibuted  to  any  untlue  partiality  on  the  part  of  the  British  authorities. 
Mor  can  Her  liritauiiie  Majesty's  governnu'nt  admit  that  there  was  any 
want  ot  proper  c<»urtesy  or  hospitality  shown  to  Captain  ('raven.  Tln^ 
Tuscarora  t«)ok  on  board  litH  tons  of  coal  at  Stuithampton,  on  the  llitli 
of  .lanuary  ;  she  reireived  further  coal,  the  amount  of  which  is  not 
known,  «>tf  ('owes,  on  the  4th  of  Febnuiry.^  On  his  return  to  the  Vaxh- 
lish  coast,  in  June,  18(52,  Captain  Craven  disregarded  the  rules  of  wliicli 
he  ha<l  complained,  by  coaling  three  tinu's,  within  two  months,  at  (lit' 
ferent  British  ports. 

[101>J     •EXKCITION  of  the    ItULKS  of   JANUAllY  31,   1802,  AT  NASHAV. 

The  rules  of  the  ,{lst  January,  1H({2,  contained  general  limitations  as 
regards  the  stav  of  b«'llig«'rent  vessels  of  war,  and  the  sup- 

Klnlllinn    t.l     III.-  !•  ,  1  \         1       ,  1  1  ■  1.      •      •      1  .  riu 

r»i I  .i..ii.ii.rv  i)hes  to  be  granted  to  such  vessels  in  British  i«)rts.     llicv 

31.  IHHSI,  .11  Na.„n,.       •  i      •  1  -      1  -..1  I    X        i.1  II      1  ' 

also  contained  special  provisions  with  regard  to  the  r>alianiii 
Islands.  No  vessels  of  war  of  either  belligerent  were  to  be  allowed  to 
enter  tin  port  of  Nassau,  <u*other  ports,  roadsteads,  or  waters  of  those 
islands,  except  by  i)ermission  of  the  governor,  or  under  stress  of 
weather.  The  Bahama  Islands  were  thus  placed  on  an  entirely  ditferent 
footing  fmm  any  other  British  colony;  the  treatment  of  the  United 
States  vessi'ls  of  war  tlu'ie  must  be  considered  separately',  and  cannot, 
with  Justice,  be  «!ontrasted  with  the  reception  (»f  confederate  cruisers  in 
other  colonies,  as  is  done,  in  one  instance,  in  the  Case  of  the  United 
State^,  (p.  2.S8.)  A  comparison  is  there  attempted  to  be  drawn  between 
the  reception  of  the  Florida  at  Bermuda,  ami  the  refusal  of  the  gov- 
eriu)r  ol  the  Bahamas  to  allow  the  Honduras  to  anchor  in  the  harbor  of 

'  ApiH'iulix  to  British  Case,  vol.  ii,  pp.  ll>,  2i<,  25,  29. 
J  Il.iil.,  J).  41. 
='  H)i<l.,  p.  .^7. 
*  Ibitl.,  p.  125. 


COUNTER   CASE    OF   OREAT   BRITAIN. 


n49 


ynssiui.  rt  is  obvious  tlint  tliero  is  no  roal  similarity  Ix'twoon  tlie  two 
cases.  At  Xassnn  tlicir  was  a  special  proliibitioii  against  the  adtnissiim 
of  hclliffiiri'iit  vessels  of  war;  at  llerimnla  their  was  no  sueli  prohi- 
bition. The  Florida,  nuireover,  was  <leelare«l  by  her  eoniniander  to  bo 
in  need  of  repairs.  N«)  sneh  reason  was  alleged  by  the  eoniniander  of 
tlie  Honduras  for  his  applicatitni.  The  latter  vessel  had  been  sent  to 
tlie  Bahamas  to  assist  the  crew  of  the  Han  .laeinto,  wliieh  had  been 
wrecked  oil"  the  Abaeo  Islands,  a  jjronp  of  the  Ilahanias  to  the  north  of 
>'('\v  Providence.  She  was  there  allowed  permission  to  anclnn-  by  the 
iiiifliorities  for  the  pnrpose  of  her  visit,  and  from  tlnuice  she  proceeded 
to  Nassau,  in  onler  to  obtain  sp«'cie  for  the  payment  of  salvage  money 
to  the  inhabitants  of  Abaco  who  had  been  instnnnental  in  saving  tho 
\vre<'k.  The  governor  did  not  consider  that  the  emergency  was  sntll- 
cient  to  Justify  his  grantnig  special  permission  to  tlu>  Honduras  to 
anchor.  The  captain  came  on  shore  to  urge  a  reconsideration  of  this 
(Iccisicm,  but  the  governor  did  not  se<'  grounds  for  altering  it;  and  he 
suggested  that  the  captain  might  take  back  the  spe(!ie  at  once,  or,  if 
tliat  were  impossible,  the  consul  might  undertake  to  forward  it  to 
Abaco.  The  captain  returned  to  his  vessel,  but,  in  defiance  of  the 
(|iiarantine  regulations,  as  well  as  of  the  spirit  of  the  governor's  decision, 
he  and  some  other  othcers  of  the  Honduras  landed  the  next  nnuning, 
called  at  the  United  States  coiisulate,  pur(;hased  some  stores,  and  re- 
turned to  the  vessel.  The  governor  took  notice  of  this  by  addressing  a 
very  temperate  remonstrance  to  the  consul;  he  acted  rightly  in  doing 
so; ami  Karl  Kussell  expiessed  tuis  opinion  when  the  matter  was  brought 
to  his  notice  by  Mr.  Adams.' 

Nussiiu  [he  Niiitl]  iH  a  i»(miti<»ii  from  wliicli,  on  tliooiie  lianil.cont'fdi^nitc  piivatccirt 
iiii;;lit  litivt)  <{rfatly  amioyt'd  tlit*  voinnuTce  of  the  Unitt'd  States,  ami  whieh.  on  tlie 
otluT  lianil,  inijjht  have  been  a  convenient  haNe  of  operationN  for  the  I'nited  StateH 
Niivy.  It  wa.s  thon^rht  rinht,  therefore,  hy  Her  Majenty'H  government  to  forhiil  tho 
ii'wirt  of  men-«»f-\var  <if  either  of  tin;  two  partien  to  the  jiort  of  NaNsan. 

(Jovernor  RawHon,  who  han  heen  exeeedinnly  Ntriet  in  eoinpellinj;  the  confuderatu 
veiwt'lH  to  comply  with  the  rnles  which  he  was  ordered  to  eiifore,  han,  no  doiiht,  con- 
ceivi-il  it  tt)  be  liiHdiity  t'O  reipiire  eqnal  eoniplian<-e  with  those  rnles  from  the  irnit(>d 
Stiitts  vetwelH  of  war.  Her  Mi^ttttt^'H  fjovernmeiit,  if  the  case  had  been  n?ferred  to 
tlii'in,  mi^ht,  in  all  probability,  Tnivu  dispensed  with  the  observance  of  thest;  rnles  in 
tlic  picnliar  case  of  the  llcnidiiras;  but  Her  Majesty's  government  cannot  be  sur|)rised 
tliiit  an  inferior  otlicer  shonld  not  have  conceived  himself  at  liberty,  upon  his  own  rc- 
siioimibility,  to  dispense  with  rnles  laid  down  by  Ht-r  Majesty  for  his  guidance.  I  have 
tiMiltservo,  moreover,  that  the  landii^  of  the  captain  of  the  Hondnras  and  hitt  ollicers 
WHS  persisted  in  not  only  in  contraversion  of  the  express  dissent  <if  the  (j;"\crnor,  an<l 
in  violation  of  the  rnles  which  tlu!  jjovernor  had  b(>en  ordertMl  to  canse  to  be  observed, 
lilt  ill  contravention,  also,  of  the  i|narantine  laws  of  the  ^ohniy.  This  is  a  |)rorec«liiij; 
wiiiili  Mr.  Seward,  I  conceive,  will  siirely  not  consider  to  have  been  Jnstilialiie. 

It  is,  however,  alleged  generally,  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States, 
that  the  special  permission  to  anchor  in  the  port  of  Nassau  was  "  lav- 
ishly given  to  every  insurgent  cruiser,  but  was  grantetl  churlishly,  if  at 
all,  to  the  vessels  of  the  United  States."  Elsewhere  it  is  .said  that 
''an  order  more  unfriendly  to  the  United  States"  than  that  of  the  .'Ust 
of  January,  1802,  "  could  not  have  been  nuide.  Under  the  construction 
practically  i)at  upon  it,  the  vessels  of  war  of  the  United  States  were 
excluded  from  the  harbor  (of  Nassau)  for  any  purpose."'  It  will,  ]i(>rhaps, 
be  a  matter  of  soc  <■  li*^tle  surprise  to  the  tribumil  to  learn  that,  Mhereas 
on  two  occasions  oriiv  'id  vessels  visittheport  of  Nasjsau  as  confederate 
cruisers,  there  ar '  no  I  '."iS  than  thirty-four  visits  of  United  States  ships 

'  Apfo  tulix  !io  Case  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i,  p.  714. 
•  Pa  .'»•  31i). 
3  Page  2'i8. 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


«^-'  IM   IIIII2.2 


1^ 


2.0 


1.8 


1.4     II  1.6 


Photographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


23  WEST  M/  IN  STREET 
WEBSTER  N.Y.  H580 

(716)  »37','  «'.0:» 


V 


iV 


^^ 


:\ 


\ 


% 


<^ 


>> 


f/j 


350 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON. 


' 


of  war  to  the  Bahama  Islands  recorded  during  the  time  that  the 
[110]    regulation  *wa8  in  force.'    On  ♦bur  occasions,  at  least,  vessels  of 

the  United  States  exceeded  the  .wentyfour  hours'  limit,  and  took 
in  coal  by  permission ;  one  of  them  also  received  permission  to  repair ; 
several  were  engaged  in  pursuit  of  vessels  suspected  of  being  blockade- 
runners,  and  did  not  in  every  instance  relinquish  the  chase  witliiu 
British  limits.  Two  prizes  appear,  indeed,  to  have  been  captured  by 
them,  one  within  a  mile  of  shore,  the  other  almost  in  port.' 

The  use  made  of  the  waters  of  the  Bahamas  by  Federal  cruisers,  for 
the  purpose  of  watching  and  intercepting  vessels  supposed  to  be 
freighted  with  cargoes  for  confederate  ports,  was  so  persistent  as  to  in- 
duce the  governor  on  one  occasion,  when  granting  permission  to  coal  to 
the  commander  of  the  Dacotah,  to  accompany  it  with  the  condition  tbat 
the  vessel  should  not,  within  the  next  ten  days,  be  cruising  within  five 
miles  of  any  of  the  Bahama  Islands.^  On  this  subject  there  is  some 
comment  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States.  The  application  was  for 
permission  to  ship,  not  twenty  tons  of  coal,  as  there  represented,  but 
sixty;  and  no  limitation  of  the  amount  was  imposed  by  the  governor, 
though  the  captain  of  the  Dacotah  chose  only  to  take  the  smaller  quan- 
tity, which  was  suflftcient  to  carry  him  to  the  coaling-depot  of  tbe 
United  States  Navy  at  Key  West.  The  condition  exacted  on  this  oc- 
casion by  the  governor  was  not  countenanced  by  Her  Majesty's  govern- 
ment, nor  was  it  required  on  subsequent  occasions,  although  Earl  Rus- 
sell had,  in  June,  1804,  to  complain  of  the  frequent  visits  of  the  United 
States  gun-boat  Tioga  to  the  out-islands  of  the  Bahamas  for  the  purpose 
of  obtaining  supplies,  and  of  the  manner  in  which  the  commander  of  tbat 
vessel  set  tbe  regulations  at  defiauce  by  anchoring  in  the  roadstead  of 
Bimini  without  permission.^ 

It  has  been  said  that  only  two  vessels  of  war  of  the  Confederate 
States  are  known  to  have  visited  the  harbor  of  Nassau  as  such,  tbe 
Florida  and  the  Ketribution  ;  two  other  vessels,  the  Nashville  and  tbe 
Tallahassee,  whic'^  had  acted  as  cruisers,  entered  the  harbor,  but  tbey 
did  so  after  they  had  ceased  to  bear  that  character,  as  merchant  ships 
and  under  other  names.  Of  the  visit  of  the  Retribution  there  is  little 
to  be  said.  She  entered  the  harbor  of  Nassau  as  being  in  distress,  in 
February,  1803,  where  she  was  condemned  as  unsea worthy,  dismantled 
and  sold,  and  registered  as  a  British  merchant-ship  under  tbe  name  of 
the  Etta.*  The  Florida  was  the  only  other  confedersite  ship  of  war  which 
received  the  permission  of  the  governor  to  anchor  in  the  port  of  Nassau, 
which  is  said  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States  to  have  been  so  "lavishly 
given  "  to  such  vessels. 

THE  FLORIDA  AT  NASSAU. 

The  reception  of  the  Florida  at  Nassau  was  in  no  way  more  favorable 
than  that  generally  accorded  to  Federal  men-of-war  visitiiig 
the  colony.    Indeed,  it  was  rather  less  so.    She  came  info 
the  harbor  of  Nassau  on  the  morning  of  the  20th  January,  1803,  with- 

'  See  return  of  visits  of  United  States  vessels  to  British  colonies,  Appendix  to  British 
Case,  vol.  v,  p.  '224. 

'^Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  i,  p.  79.  Appendix  to  Case  of  the  Unit-  d  States,  vol. 
vi,  p.  U8. 

"Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  i,  p.  360. 

^  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  v,  pp.  21, 196.  The  regulation  prohibiting  th''  entry  of 
belligerent  vessels  into  British  ports  for  the  purpose  of  being  dismantled  and  sold  was 
only  issued  in  September,  1864,  more  than  a  year  afterward.  (See  Appendix  to  Britisli 
Case,  vol.  i,  p.  467.) 


The     Florida 
Nassau. 


COUNTER   CASE    OF   GREAT   BRITAIN. 


351 


out  previously  askingpermlssion,  her  commander  being,  as  he  explained, 
ignorant  of  the  regulation  which  rendered  such  a  course  necessary. 
The  for'^  adjutant,  as  he  had  done  in  the  case  of  the  United  States  ves- 
sel Stars  and  Stripes  some  months  before,  came  on  board  to  ask  for  an 
explanation  ;  and  he  took  the  commander  of  the  Florida  on  shore  in  his 
boat,  as  he  had  on  the  former  occasion  taken  the  commander  of  the 
Stars  and  Stripes,  in  order  that  application  might  be  at  once  made  for 
the  necessary  permission.  Captain  Mafflt  addressed  a  letter  to  the  gov- 
ernor, statingthatlns  vessel  was  in  distressforwant  of  coal, and  requesting 
permission  to  anchor  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  it.  The  governor 
granted  the  permission,  stating  that  he  did  so  as  thereby  according  to 
a  confederate  steamer  the  same  privileges  which  he  had  formerly  granted 
to  Federal  steamers.  But  he  desired  that  the  irregularity  in  delaying 
to  make  the  request  should  be  pointed  out,  and  that  the  i)ilot  should  be 
called  on  to  explain  how  he  admitted  the  Florida  without  permission.' 
In  the  case  of  the  Stars  and  Stripes,  the  governor  had,  without  any 
written  application,  given  leave  to  take  in  coal  for  a  much  larger  amount 
than  her  commander  required,  and  the  United  States  consul  wrote  to 

thank  him  for  "the  permission  so  graciously  accorded."  ^ 
[ill]  *The  Florida  remained  in  the  harbor  about  twenty-six  hours, 
(not  thirty-six,  as  stated  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States,-')  leav- 
ing not  later  than  noon  of  the  27th  of  Jaiiuary.  Of  the  exact  amount 
of  coal  taken  on  board  no  record  has  been  found  ;  but  it  could  not  have 
been  such  an  amount  as  is  assumed  by  the  United  States.  The  quantity 
of  coal  which  the  Flori<la  was  capable  of  stowing  was  but  130  tons  ;* 
her  consumption  at  full  speed  was  estimated  by  British  oliicers  ap- 
pointed to  investigate  the  matter  at  Bermuda,  as  15  cwt.  an  hour,  or  18 
tons  a  day.  She  could  not  possibly,  therefore,  have  taken  on  board  a 
three  months'  supply,  as  is  alleged.  This  is  further  proved  by  the 
statement,  which  afterward  appears  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States, 
that  "  by  the  middle  of  the  following  month  her  coal  was  getting  low ;" 
and  this  when  we  are  told  that  *'  she  ordinarily  sailed  under  canvas," 
and  only  used  steam  in  the  pursuit  and  capture  of  vessels.^ 

Her  Britannic  IVlajesty's  government  thinks  that  enough  has  been 
said  to  show  that  the  partiality  alleged  to  have  been  shown  to  confede- 
rate vessels  of  war  by  the  authorities  of  Nassau  had  no  real  existence. 
The  United  States  have  alluded,  in  their  Case,  to  the  absence  of  any  but 
oflicial  relations  between  those  authorities  and  the  United  States  consul. 
Her  Majesty's  government  is  unwilling  to  dwell  upon  the  reasons  (which 
were  not  political)  for  that  state  of  things.  It  was,  undoubtedly,  a 
source  of  embarrassment  to  the  governor;  and  it  appears  to  have 
created  a  feeling  on  Mr.  Whiting's  part,  which  colored  all  his  reports  to 
his  Government,  and  render  them  tar  from  an  accurate  representation 
of  the  real  state  of  affairs  in  the  colony.  The  following  extract  from  a 
dispatch  of  the  governor  shows  that  there  was  no  indisposition  to  show 
hospitality  and  civility  to  officers  of  the  United  States  when  he  could 
properly  do  so : 

So  far  from  having  shown  too  much  sympathy  with  the  South,  I  believe  I  might 
justly  be  suspected  of  not  having  shown  enough.  I  know  that  I  have  seen  and  re- 
ceived more  northern  than  sontLern  visitors  at  Government  House  during  the  List 
season  ;  and  that  whereas  I  had  invited  several  northern  officers  to  dinner,  the  only 
southern  officer  who  called  I  did  not  invite. 


'Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  i,  p.  78. 
'  Ibid.,  vol.  V,  pp.  31,  32. 

'  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  i,  p.  79.    See  also  extract  from  Bahama  Herald,  Ap- 
pendix to  Case  of  the  United  States,  vol.  vi,  p.  33-' 
*  See  report  of  British  naval  officers  a  I.  Bermuda,  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  t,  p.  11. 
°  Case  of  the  United  States,  p.  352. 


'% 


352 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


¥;i  I  \ 


a 


EXEC!UTION  OF  THE  RULES  OP  JANUARY  31,  1862,  TN  OTHER  COLON  FES. 

Having  thus  shown  the  conduct  of  the  authorities  at  Nassau  under 
Kx«Mtion  of  the  the  spccial  regulations  applicable  to  that  colony,  Her  IJri- 
\ti.  ':'„  ''.'.iC'rJo'  tannic  Majesty's  government  proceeds  to  notice  tlie  alleged 
"' "  disregard  of  the  general  regulations  in  the  case  of  visits  of 

confederate  cruisers  to  other  British  ports.  According  to  those  regula- 
tions, no  vessel  of  war  of  either  belligerent  was  to  be  allowed  to  remain 
in  a  British  port  more  than  twenty-four  hours,  except  in  case  of  stress 
of  weather,  or  of  her  requiring  repairs  or  sui)plies  necessary  for  the 
subsistence  of  her  crew.  No  coal  was  to  be  supplied  to  such  a  vessel 
beyond  the  amount  suflBcient  to  carry  her  to  the  nearest  port  of  her  own 
ountry ;  nor  was  coal  to  be  again  supplied  to  her  in  any  British  port, 
without  spe'^'  il  permission,  within  three  months  after  she  had  last  re- 
ceived such  a  supply  in  a  British  i)ort.  It  has  been  already  explained 
that  the  case  of  the  Nashville,  at  Bermuda,  in  February,  1802,  did  not 
come  within  these  rules,  which  had  not  at  the  time  reached  the  colony. 
The  first,  and,  indeed,  the  oidy,  instance  in  which  special  permission  to 
coal  was  obtained  within  three  months  after  a  previous  sui>ply  at  a 
British  port  was  that  of  the  Florida,  at  Barbados. 

THE  FLORIDA  AT  BARBADOS. 

The  Florida  arrived  at  Barbados  on  the  24th  February,  1863.  Her 
TheFioh.ia«tnnr.  commauder  rei)resented  to  the  governor  that  liis  vessel  had 
bn.i,,..  recently  gone  through  severe  weather;  that  his  stock  of 

coal  had,  in  consequence,  been  entirely  exhausted ;  and  that,  unleas  he 
could  ship  some  more,  and  have  some  lumber  to  rei)air  the  damages  his 
vessel  had  suffered,  he  could  not  go  to  sea,  and  would  be  obliged  to 
land  his  men  and  strip  the  ship.  The  governor  granted  the  permission, 
limiting  the  amount  to  ninety  tons,  which  was  certainly  not  an  excessive 
quantity,  considering  the  distance  from  the  ports  of  the  Southern  States.' 
In  so  doing,  he  was  under  the  impression  that  he  was  only  granting 
similar  facilities  to  those  previously  accorded  to  the  United  States  ves- 
sel San  Jacinto,  whose  commander  had  also  asked  for  special  permission 

to  ship  fuel  and  articles  for  repairs.  The  governor  took  the 
[112]    *further  precaution  of  writing  to  the  governors  of  neighboring 

British  colonies,  stating  the  date  at  which  the  Florida  had  coaled. 
All  this  he  explained  to  Admiral  Wilkes,  w  ho  visited  the  island  shortly 
afterward,  and  who,  after  receiving  these  explanations,  made  use  of 
them  to  write  him  a  long  letter  of  complaint.  The  matter  was  reported 
by  the  governor  to  Her  Britannic  Majesty's  government,  and  was  also 
represented  by  Mr.  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons.  While  acquitting  the  gov- 
ernor of  any  intentional  disregard  of  his  instructions,  the  government 
were  of  opinion  that,  in  regard  both  to  the  San  Jacinto  and  the  Florida, 
too  much  latitude  had  been  used  in  giving  the  "special permission" con- 
templated in  the  regulations,  and  a  dispatch  was  addressed  to  Barbados, 
and  to  other  British  colonies  in  the  West  Indies,  defining  the  circum- 
stances under  which  such  "  special  permission"  might  properly  be  granted. 
It  was  pointed  out  at  the  same  time  that  an  unauthorized  concession  to 
one  belligerent  was  not  likely  to  be  accepted,  by  those  to  whom  it  was 
made,  as  a  justification  of  a  similar  concession  in  the  opposite  direction.^ 

'Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  i,  p.  92. 
«Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  102. 


w^ 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    (JREAT    UKITAIN. 


asa 


It  IS  now  asserted  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  that  the 
oase  of  the  San  Jacinto,  referred  to  by  the  governor  of  Barbados,  w.as 
not  parallel  to  that  of  the  Florida,  inasmuch  as  the  San  Jacinto,  though 
she  had  touched  at  Bermuda  shortly  before  her  arrival  at  Barbados, 
hail  not  taken  in  any  coal  at  the  former  colony.'  Her  Majesty's  gov- 
ernment does  not  dispute  this  fact,  although  not  aware  of  it  before. 
Bat  such  a  circumstance,  recently  acertained,  as  it  appears,  from  the 
records  of  the  United  States  Navy,  does  not  in  any  way  affect  the  fact 
that  the  governor  was,  at  the  time,  uTider  the  impression  that  the  two 
lases  were  similar.  It  cannot  be  admitted,  as  urged  by  the  United 
States,  that  the  burden  is  upon  Great  Britain  to  establish  that  a  high 
officer  of  Her  Majesty  acted  "innocently"  on  this  occasion,  or  that  his 
explanation  was  a  truthful  one.  These  are  matters  which  clearly  ought 
to  be  taken  for  granted,  unless  there  is  positive  evidence  to  the  contrary, 
;in(l  the  more  so  Avhen,  as  on  the  present  occasion,  every  attendant  cir- 
cumstance combines  to  show  that  the  oflicer  acted  in  good  faith.  Still 
less  can  it  be  allowed  that  "  the  act,  whether  done  innocently  or  de- 
signedly, was  a  violation  of  the  duties  of  a  neutral,"  or  that  it  furnished 
the  United  States  with  any  real  "cause  of  complaint  against  Great 
Britain."  At  most,  it  amounted  to  no  more  than  a  somewhat  too  broad 
interpretation  placed  by  the  authorities  of  a  distant  colony  on  a  rule 
which  had  been  made,  not  in  compliance  with  any  requirement  of  inter- 
national law,  but  as  a  matter  of  convenience;  and  measures  were  at 
ouce  taken  to  prevent  the  recuiTence  of  a  similar  mistake. 

The  instructions  sent  to  the  governor  on  this  occasion  enjoined  on 
him  a  strict  adherence  to  the  regulations,  "  without  any  arbitrary  con- 
eession  to  either  belligerent,"  as  the  best  means  of  avoiding  misunder- 
standing and  complaints  of  partiality  for  the  future.  The  anxiety  of 
the  governor  to  comply  with  this  direction  led  to  a  misunderstanding,, 
of  which  mention  has  been  made  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States.  The 
United  States  vessel  of  war  Connecticut  touched  at  Barbados  in  April, 
1865,  and  her  commander,  Captain  Boggs,  wrote  to  the  governor:  "I 
find  it  necessary  to  remain  a  few  days  ior  the  purpose  of  overhaul- 
ing the  piston  and  feedpump  of  the  engine,  and  I  trust  that  no  objec- 
tions can  be  made."  It  will  be  seen  that  the  application  was  rather 
loosely  worded  as  regards  the  necessity  of  the  repair.  The  governor, 
in  consequence,  replied  that  Captain  Boggs  knew,  of  course,  the  in- 
structions under  which  they  both  acted,  and  that,  before  giving  his 
sanction,  he  must  request  a  detinite  assurance  of  the  inability  of  the 
Connecticut  to  proceed  to  sea  at  the  expiration  of  twenty-four  hours, 
and  as  to  the  period  within  which  it  would  bo  possible  to  execute  the 
necessary  repairs.  This  was,  in  fact,  no  more  than  a  request  for  a  for- 
mal application  from  the  commander  of  the  Connecticut  such  as  would 
bring  that  vessel  within  the  letter  of  the  regulations.  Captain  Boggs, 
however,  somewhat  unreasonably  interpreted  it  otherwise.  He  replied 
that  it  virtually  refused  the  jjermission  requested,  and  that  "he  could 
not  give  such  an  assurance  as  was  required,  inasmuch  as  an  American 
ship  of  war  could  always  go  to  sea  in  some  manner."  He  left  the  port, 
accordingly,  without  repairing.  The  governor  reported  the  matter  home 
at  the  time,  saying  that  he  thought  Captain  Boggs  had  placed  an  un- 
f^enerous  construction  on  his  letter,  but  that  he  did  not  see  how  he  could 
have  acted  otherwise ;  and,  in  a  dispatch  lately  received,  he  repeats  the 
same  explanation.  "The  commodore,"  he  says,  "knew  perfectly  well 
what  my  instructions  were;  and  if  my  words  had  any  meaning  at  all, 

'  Case  of  the  United  States,  p.  356.    Appendix  to  same,  vol.  vi,  p.  345, 
23  A— 11 


354 


TREATY    OF    WA.sHIN(;TO\. 


If".    ; 


1     1 


I' 


i' 


ri.e    Fir. 


it  inu.>t  liavu  luieii  clear  to  bim  tbat  I  wanted  nothing  more  from  liim 

than  a.justilication  for  acceding  to  his  re<iue.st.' 
|li;>!        *The  arbitrators  will  have  observed  that,  in  cases  where  con 
lederatc  vessels  of  waj'  appliec'  for  permission  to  repair,  it  was 
lrc(|uently  the  practice  of  the  Jiritish  authorities  not  to  depend  upon 
the  mere  statement  of  the  comnicander  of  the  vessel  as  to  the  necessity 
for  repairs  and  the  time  they  would  take,  but  to  insist  on  an  examina 
tion  and  a  report  by  British  othcers;  and  this  requirement  was,  as  far 
as  is  known,  acceded  to  in  all  such  cases  without  demur.    No  instauco 
is  alleged  of  such  a  precaution  having  been  taken  in  the  case  of  United 
States  vessels;  and,  compared  with  it,  the  answer  given  to  Captain 
iJoggs  cannot  be  regarded  as  nmtter  for  complaint.     Jler  ]>ritaniiic  Ma 
.jesty's  government  have  only  to  add  that,  ii    addition  to  the  visits  ot 
the  San  Jacinto  and  Connecticut  alluded  to  above,  nineteen  other  visits 
of  United  States  ships  of  war  to  Barbados  are  recorded  during  the  civil 
war.    Two  of  these  vessels  are  mentioned  as  having  received  p(  rrais- 
siou  to  take  in  <roal,  and  none  of  them  appear  to  have  had  any  reason 
to  comidain  of  their  recei)tion.    As  far  as  Her  Majesty's  government  is 
aware,  the  visit  of  the  Florida  is  the  sole  instance  of  any  confederate 
cruiser  liaviug  icceived  tiie  hospitality  of  the  colony. 

TIIK   1  r.OlMDA  AT    JSEimiDA. 

The  Florida  arrived  off  Bermuda  for  the  first  time  on  the  evening  oi 
,,  the  loth  of  July,  1803,  and  entered  the  harbor  the  following 
morning.  Her  commander  stated  that  his  vessel  was  in 
want  of  repairs  to  the  hull  and  machinery,  and  that  he  required  also  a 
small  supply  of  coal.  Of  the  latter,  there  was  at  the  time  none  in  the 
colony  except  in  the  government  stores,  and  the  military  and  naval  au- 
thorities, to  whom  Captain  IMaffit  successively  applied,  positively  refused 
to  allow  him  any  supply  from  that  source.-  Permission  to  etfect  repairs 
in  the  government  dock-yard  was  also  refused ;  and  Captain  3Iaffit, 
having  stated  that  his  vessel  must  be  considered  as  detained  in  distress 
for  want  of  coal,  was  warned  that  the  regulations  were  very  strict  as  td 
the  limitation  of  time  for  the  stay  of  belligerent  cruisers ;  that  it  was 
necessary  that  whatever  the  Florida  re<iuired  to  enable  her  to  leavo 
should  be  provided  within  the  shortest  i^ossible  period ;  and  that,  in 
the  meanwhile,  she  must  leave  the  port  of  St.  (George's  for  the  anchor 
age  at  Grassy  Bay.  The  arrival  of  a  vessel  from  Halifax  with  a  cargo 
of  coal  relieved  Captain  Maffit  from  his  difficulty,  and  he  left  the  island 
on  the  2.">th  of  July.  The  vessel  which  brought  the  coal  is  asserted  by 
the  United  States  to  have  been  the  Harriet  Pinckney,  and  it  is  insiuu 
ated  that  the  transaction  amounted  to  an  infraction  of  the  rule  against 
the  establishment  of  coal-depots  in  British  ports  for  the  use  of  either 
belligerent.  Her  Majesty's  government  is  at  a  loss  to  understand  on 
what  ground  such  an  allegation  is  made.  The  Harriet  Pickney  was,  to 
all  appearance,  an  ordinary  trading- vessel,  in  which  capacity  she  visited 
Saint  George's  five  times  between  January,  1863,  and  February,  1864. 
There  was  nothing  in  the  attendant  circumstances  to  raise  a  suspicion 
that  the  coal  was  sent  expressly  for  the  Florida ;  indeed,  the  previous 
conduct  of  Captain  Maffit  contradicts  such  a  supposition  ;  nor  does  tbo 
occurrence  seem  to  have  given  rise  to  any  complaint  on  the  part  of  tlic 
United  States  consul. 


'Appendix  to  Britisb  Case,  vol.  v,  p.  1. 
-Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  108,109. 
'Ibid.,  vol.  V,  pp.  ~  '" 


^^,  13. 


"" 'WUHBJii 


(  (MM  1:K    (  A>K    of    (iRKAT    IJKIIAIN. 


.'ion 


On  tliis  oei'ii.sioii,  rliroU};h  a  iuiscoiit't'|»tion,  tlio  salute  of  the  Florida 
was  returned.     It  was  the  only  instance  in  which  the  tla;^:  of  the  Con 
federate  States  received  such  a  courtesy  from  British  authorities.     It 
was  disai)proved  by  Iler  Majesty's  j'overninent ;  and  a  circular  instruc- 
tion was  sent  to  all  the  British  colonies  to  prevent  its  repetition.' 

From  Be'-muda  the  Florida  proceeded  to  the  F'rench  harbor  of  Brest, 
where  she  r  Miained  tive  nu)nths  rehtting.  On  theLMJth  April,  1804,  she 
visited  the  l  ench  i)ort  of  Saint  Pierre,  Martini(pic,  where  she  remained 
till  the  7th  ]\lay  and  took  in  a  full  supply  of  coals,  provisions,  and  water,- 
Ou  the  14th  j\Iay  she  asain  ai>peared  olf  Bermuda,  but  remained  only 
long  enou<?h  to  land  a  sick  otUcer.  She  returned  to  Bermuda  on  the 
liltli  of  .June,  18(14,  and  her  commander,  Ijieutenant  Morris,  wrote  to 
announce  his  arrival,  slatin^i'  that  he  was  in  want  of  coals,  provisions, 
1111(1  repairs,  \vhich  last  it  would  be  impossible  to  ell'eet  unless  he  were 
iiiithorized  to  proceed  to  the  j^overnment  dock-yard,  rermission  to  do 
this  was,  however,  refus«'d.  Two  British  ollicers  were  sent  on  board  the 
Florida  with  directions  to  report  whether  she  could  proceed  to  sea  with- 
out any  repairs  beinp;  made  lo  her  machinery,  and  what  time  they  con- 
sidered would  be  necessary  to  complete  such  repairs  as  might  be 
absolutely  required,  and  were  ca])ablo  of  beinjj,'  carried  out  in 
114j  Saint  (Jeor^e's  harbor.  *These  ollicers  reported,  on  the  -0th  of 
June,  that  the  Florida  could  ''prowled  to  sea  with  safety'  under 
steam,  but  under  sail  was  unmanageable  with  her  screw  up  in  bad 
weather,"  aiul  they  stated  that  the  uecessary  repairs  could  be  uuide 
ijood  there,  and,  as  far  as  they  could  judge,  would  require  tive  days  for 
one  niau,  viz,  a  diver  for  two  tlays,  and  a  fitter  for  three  days,  or  three 
complete  days  in  all.  There  were  also  defects  which  rendered  her  main- 
topniast  unsafe,  and  which  could,  in  their  opinion,  be  made  good  in  two 
days;  they  did  not  state  how  many  men  would  be  required. 

The  governor,  alter  consulting  with  the  admiral  on  the  station,  gave 
permission  on  Monday  the  L'lst  of  June  for  the  Florida  to  remain  tive 
days  in  port,  a  permission  which  cannot  be  considered  unreasonable, 
considering  the  scarcity  of  skilled  workmen  and  the  possibility  evidently 
contemplated  by  the  committee  of  otlicers  that  it  might  be  necessary'  to 
employ  the  same  man  as  fitter  and  diver.  The  five  working  days  ex- 
pired at  noon  on  ]\[ouday  the  27th  June,  and  on  the  evening  of  thiit  day 
the  Florida  left  the  port.  Among  the  documents  produced  by  the  United 
States  is  a  bill  for  carpenter's  work  sent  in  to  the  commander  of  the 
Florida,  which  shows  that  four  carpenters  were  employed  on  her  for 
i'our  days.  Taking  into  account  the  small  quantity  of  materials  charged 
for,  which  show  that  the  repairs  could  not  have  been  extensive,  the 
probability  that  unskilled  workmen  were  employed,  and  the  fact  pre- 
viously mentioned,  that  the  number  of  men  required  to  repair  the  niain- 
topiuast  is  not  stated  in  the  report  of  the  officers.  Her  Majesty's 
government  does  not  see  that  any  proof  is  produced  of  an  abuse  of  the 
permission  given.  The  report  of  the  officers  went  on  to  state  the  hourly 
consumption  of  coal  of  the  Florida's  engines,  and  they  estimated  that 
she  could  reach  the  port  of  Mobile  with  a  supply  of  100  tons.  The  gov- 
ernor received  a  written  assurance  from  Lieutenant  Morris  that  the  first 
confederate  port  he  expected  to  make  was  Mobile,  and  that  he  had  taken 
on  hoard  about  80  tons  of  coal,  more  or  less.  The  United  States  pro- 
duce what  purports  to  be  a  voucher  for  135  tons  of  coal  supplied  to  the 
Florida  on  this  occasion.  If  this  voucher  is  correct,  Her  Majesty's  gov- 
ernment can  only  say  that  not  only  did  Lieutenant  Morris  deceive  the 


V  ' 


only  say  t 

'  Apppurtix  to  British  Case,  vol.  i.  j*.  108;  vol.  v,  p.  129. 
-Iliid.,  vol.  i,  p.  131. 


'■-t 

4 

..m 

W^f   f 

1  -   * 

i 

wr 

1 

1 

1 

I 

1 

' 

!•' 

\ 

i 

i- 

35G 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


governor,  but  tliiit  the  Florida  took  on  board  more  coal  than,  accordm;; 
to  the  estimate  of  the  British  officers,  she  had  room  to  carry.  Tlie  sini 
pie  fact  is,  that  the  governor,  who  had  recourse  to  the  advice  of  tin 
admiral  on  the  station,  conscientiously  endeavored  to  enforce  the  vc^- 
ulations.' 

The  Florida  left  Bermuda,  as  has  been  said,  on  the  27th  of  .\n\U'. 
Five  days  afterward  she  re-appeared,  for  the  alleged  purpose  of  giving; 
up  two  British  soldiers,  deserters,  who  had  been  found  on  board,  and  ai; 
endeavor  was  made  by  her  commander  to  obtain  more  coal  to  re|)lenisli 
the  amount  he  had  consumed,  said  to  be  15  tons.  This  was  peremi)toi  il.\ 
refused,  and  the  barge  containing  the  coals  was  brought  back,  thousl: 
not,  it  is  believed,  until  Lieutenant  Morris,  who  had  begun  coaling  with 
out  permission,  bad  succeeded  in  shipping  about  7\  tons.  The  Floridii 
then  lert,  and  did  not  again  visit  a  British  port.' 


THE    CIIK.KAMAl  GA    AT    BERMUDA. 


The  other  confederate  cruiser,  whose  treatment  at  Bermuda  forms  a 
subject  of  complaint  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  is  the 


The    r'hirk:mi:ui«{i 
;it  Ueniiudii. 


Ohickamauga.  Of  this  vessel  it  is  said  that  "  on  the  8th  ot 
November  she  was  allowed  to  come  into  the  harbor,  and  permissiou  was 
given  for  a  stay  of  tive  days  for  rei)airs,  and  also  to  take  on  borrni  L*5  toIl^• 
of  coal,  though  she  had  at  that  time  100  tons  in  her  bunkers ;"  that  "  she 
actually  staid  seven  days  and  took  on  board  82  tons."^  The  authority 
given  for  this  is  an  extract  from  a  manuscript  diary  of  a  midshipman  on 
board  the  vessel ;  but  the  quotation  is  incorrect,  for  the  amount  stated 
in  the  diary  is  not  82  but  72  tons.''  Her  Majesty's  government  may 
remark  that  the  evidence  derived  from  a  midshipman's  journal  can 
hardly  be  regarded  as  of  much  value.  It  has  been  seen  elsewhere  that 
the  passages  in  the  i)ublished  journal  of  an  oflftcer  of  the  Shenandoah, 
quoted  or  referred  to  by  the  United  States,  were  inaccurate  in  matters 
relating  to  that  vessel,  of  which  he  had  no  absolute  personal  knowledge. 
and  this  seems  to  be  the  case  in  the  present  instance. 

The  Chickamauga  arrived  at  Bermuda  on  Monday,  the  7th  Xoveni- 
ber,  1864,  and  her  commander  asked  i)ermission  to  coal  and  repair  ma 
chinery.    Two  officers  of  the  British  navy  were  sent  on  board  to  report 
what  repairs  were  required,  the  quantity  of  coal  in  the  vessel,  and  the 

additional  quantity,  if  any,  which  would  be  required  to  enable  her 
[115]    to  *reach  the  nearest  port  of  the  Confederate  States.     These 

officers  reported  on  Wednesday,  the  9th  of  November,  that  the 
repairs  necessary  to  render  the  vessel  tit  for  sea  would  take  four  or  five 
days  to  complete ;  that  she  had  about  75  tons  on  board  ;  that  her  daily 
consumption  was  25  tons,  and  that  they  considered  25  tons  more  would 
enable  her  to  reach  the  nearest  confederate  port.*  Permission  was,  there- 
fore, given  to  her  commander  to  take  the  vessel  in  St.  George's  Harbor, 
to  remain  there  till  Tuesday,  the  15th  instant,  (that  is  to  say,  for  a  space 
of  about  five  working  days,)  and  to  take  on  board  25  tons  of  coal.  The 
commander  objected  that  the  quantity  of  Goal  allowed  was  insufficient, 
and  asked  for  permission  to  take  in  25  tons  more,  but  this  was  refused. 
Orders  were  given  to  the  revenue  officer  in  charge  to  take  care  that  the 
specified  amount  was  not  exceeded,  and  the  tribunal  will  find  in  the 


'  Aupeiidix  to  Britisli  Case,  vol.  i,  \f.  133  ;  vol.  v,  pp.  4,  9-12 

^Caee  of  United  States,  p.  415. 

'Appendix  to  Case  of  Uuiteil  States,  vol.  vi,  p.  726. 

^  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  v,  pp.  135,  13t). 

f- Ibid.,  pp.  137,  138. 


COUNTER    CASH    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


357 


iippeiulix  the  atlidavit  of  the  oiiicer  placed  on  board  for  this  purpose  on 
rbo  night  when  the  Chickamanga  was  coalin};,  in  which  it  is  positively 
uftiriued  that  she  did  not  receive  more  than  li.j  tons  on  that  occasion, 
and  a  conviction  is  expressed  that  she  «iid  not  get  more  at  Bermuda. ' 
Other  concurrent  testimony  is  also  given  ;  but  it  appears  that  the  har- 
iior  was  at  the  time  crowded  with  shipping,  and  at  this  distance  of  time 
it  is  not  possible  absolutely  to  prove  that  by  some  illicit  means  the 
Cliic'Ivamauga  may  not  have  succeeded  in  obtaining  an  extra  supply. 
Her  ]\[ajesty's  government  maintains,  however,  tliat  on  this  occasion,  (as 
was  observed  by  Earl  Itussell  with  regi'rd  to  tlie  previous  visit  of  the 
Florida,)  "although  some  disposition  was  manifested  to  evade  the 
stringency  of  Jler  Majesty's  regulations,  the  most  comnuMidable  strict- 
:iess  and  diligence  in  enforcing  those  regulations  was  observed  on  the 
part  of  the  authorities.'' - 

Having  thus  noticed  the  visits  of  confederate  cruisers  to  Bermuda,  it 
s  necessary  to  make  some  mention  of  the  acts  and  the  treatment  of 
United  States  vessels  of  war  at  that  colony.  Admiral  Wilkes  arrived 
orttiie  island  on  the  evening  of  the  liOth  September,  1SG2,  on  board  the 
Wachusett,  accompanied  by  the  gun-boats  Sonoma  and  Tioga.  The 
Wachusett  and  Tioga  entered  the  harbor  on  the  morning  of  Saturday 
:lie  I'Tth,  and  requested  permission  to  take  on  board  about  sixty  tons  of 
coal.  Upon  various  pretexts  the  departure  of  these  vessels  was  delaye^l 
until  the  1st  of  October,  when  the  Tioga  lett.  An  accident  to  the  boiler 
of  the  Wachusett  deferred  her  departure  to  the  next  day.  The  Sonoma, 
;n  the  meanwhile,  continued  to  cruise  in  the  oiling  bj^  day,  and  in  the 
evening  anchored  close  to  the  narrow  entrance  of  the  harbor,  and  this 
proceeding  was  persisted  in,  notwithstanding  the  governor's  remon- 
strances. Admiral  Wilkes  recpiested  permission  for  the  Sonoma  to  come 
into  the  harbor,  for  thirty-six  hours,  to  repair;  and  this  was  granted.  The 
Sonoma  accordingly  entered  on  the  1st  of  October,  and  proceeded  to 
take  in  coal.  It  had  not  been  UL<Ierstood  that  permission  for  that  pur- 
pose was  re(]uested;  the  squadron,  moreover,  had  left  the  United  States 
l)iit  four  days  before  their  arrival  at  Bermuda,  and  the  Sonoma's  supply 
of  coal  had  been  since  expended  in  cruising  off  the  harbor;  yet  she  was 
allowed  to  renew  her  supply.  The  Tioga,  in  the  meanwhile,  took  up 
tlie  same  position  which  the  Sonoma  had  previously  occupied  outside 
the  harbor,  and  these  two  vessels  remained  cruising  off  the  port  of  St. 
George's  until  the  12th  of  (Jctober.  Contrary  to  the  ordinary  courtesy 
on  such  occasions,  the  commander  of  the  Sonoma  placed  sentries  on 
British  territory  on  the  wharf  from  which  she  was  taking  coals.  The 
British  minister  at  Washington  was  instructed  to  address  a  remonstrance 
to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  upon  the  subject  of  Admiral 
Wilkes's  proceedings.  Mr.  Seward  replied,  stating  that  Admiral  Wilkes's 
conduct  must  have  been  misunderstood ;  that  his  reports  gave  abun- 
dant evidence  of  feelings  altogether  just  and  liberal  toward  the  British 
authorities,  and  respectful  and  cordial  toward  the  British  government. 
He  promised,  however,  an  investigation  into  the  circumstances,  and  he 
subsequently  communicated  to  Lord  Lyons,  with  the  expression  of  a 
liope  that  it  would  prove  satisfactory,  a  dispatch  from  Admiral  Wilkes 
tlenyiug  that  he  had  given  any  cause  of  complaint.  The  amount  of  coal 
taken  in  by  Admiral  Wilkes's  squadron  amounted  to  239  tons. 

Au  allusion  is  made  in  a  foot-note  at  page  324  of  the  Case  of  the 
I'uited  States  to  the  failure  of  the  United  States  vessels  Keystone 

'  Appendix  to  Britisb  Case,  vol.  v,  p.  139. 

-  Appendix  to  Case  of  the  United  States,  vol.  vi,  p.  368. 


^^KK''  ' 

■:-A^ 

I^PBi- 

3.58 


TRKATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


S 


State  Jiiul  (Quaker  City  to  obtain  coal  at  liermiula  in  Deceiiiber,  I8(il, 
At  that  time  there  was  no  restriction  on  the  coaling  of  belligerent  ves- 
sels. All  that  happened  was,  that  the  British  admiral  declined  to  sup 
ply  the  two  vessels  mentioned  from  the  government  stores,  not  having 
a  snfli(!ient  stock  for  his  own  vessels.  A  similar  answer  had. 
[IIOJ  in  the  foregoing  October,  been  retnrned  to  the  *commander  of 
the  Nashville,  who  had  supplied  himself  from  private  sources,  but 
this,  on  account  either  of  the  scarcity  or  the  high  price  of  coal  in  the  col- 
ony, the  United  States  officers  did  not  do.  Twelve  other  visits  of  United 
States  vessels  of  war  to  Bermuda  are  recorded.  Five  of  these  vessels 
uniie.i  stnt.v.  v^..  exceeded  the  twenty-four  hours'  limit  of  stay ;  three  are 
''"'""""""'"  stated  to  have  refitted,  two  to  have  coaled.  Among  these 
was  the  AVachusett,  which  returned  to  the  colony  in  May,  1853,  and  o1> 
tained  i)ermission  to  coal  and  repair.'  In  the  case  of  another  vessel,  the 
Mohican,  which  put  in  on  her  way  from  Philadelphia  to  the  west  coast 
of  Africa,  the  governor  not  only  granted  an  exceptionally  large  supply 
of  coal,  beyond  the  quantity  authorized  by  the  regulations,  but  promised 
the  assistance  of  the  government  dock-yard  oliicial  towards  the  com 
pletion  of  her  repairs,  and  his  conduct  in  so  doing  was  approved  by 
Her  Majesty's  government.^ 

The  quantity  of  coal  taken  by  the  Mohican  seems  slightly  to  have  ex- 
ceeded the  amount  named  by  her  commander.  He  askeil  for  permis 
sion  to  ship  100  tons,  but  is  stated  to  have  received  104.  The  difference 
is  not  material  except  to  show  that  the  most  conscientious  officer  may 
chance  to  take  a  little  more  than  the  amount  at  which  he  has  roughly 
estimated  his  requirements. 

Her  Majesty's  government  thinks  that  enough  has  been  said  to  con 
vince  the  tribunal  that,  as  regards  the  colony  of  Bermuda,  no  accusation 
of  undue  partiality  toward  the  Confederate  States  can  be  fairly  made. 


riie     Atiilii<iti;i     1(1 
.Iimuiicn. 


THE   ALAlU:\rA  AT  JAMAICA. 

Of  the  visit  of  the  Alabama  to  Jamaica  there  is  little  to  be  said.  iSbi 
arrived  on  the  -50th  of  J.anuary,  1803,  having  recently  en 
gaged  and  sunk  the  United  States  ship  of  war  Hatteras. 
Her  need  of  repairs  was  obvious,  as  she  had  six  shot-holes  in  her  hull  at 
the  water-line.  She  was  received  as  a  vessel  of  war,  as  she  had  previ- 
ously been  at  the  French  colony  of  Martinique,  and  she  obtained  per 
mission  to  make  repairs  and  take  in  coal.  The  repairs  were  completed 
on  the  Uoth  of  January,  on  the  evening  of  which  day  she  went  to  sea. 
Seven  vessels  of  the  United  States  are  recorded  to  have  visited  Jamaica 
during  the  civil  war,  remaining  for  periods  of  from  three  to  ten  days. 
Three  of  them  received  coal ;  the  quantity  supplied  is  unknown.  ■ 


THE  ALABAMA,  CIEOIJGIA,  AND  TUSCALOOSA  AT  THE  CAPE  OF  GOOD  IIOrE. 

Concerning  the  visits  of  the  Alabama,  the  Georgia,  and  the  Tuscaloosa 

ri,eAh.hai <i™.  to  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  in  August  and  September. 

tu,,ancnu»™i;.„s„.  18(33^  every  material  particular  has  been  placed  before  the 
arbitrators  in  the  Case  of  Great  Britain,  nor  is  there  anything  on  the 
subject  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States  which  seems  to  call  for  a  further 
reply  than  will  be  found  in  the  statement  of  facts  thus  given.  The 
grounds  have  been  stated  on  which  it  was  considered  by  Her  Majesty's 

'  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  v,  p.  *22G. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  ;{2. 
'Ibid.,  p. 231. 


^^mufH 


COUNTKR    CASK    OF    GRKAT    UKITAIN. 


:\f)d 


iOOB  iiorE. 


Aiiiiiainaaltt.f 
"I  lin.vl  H"|..-. 


^jovenimeiit  that  the  jajovernor  and  his  legjil  advisers  had  been  in  error 
in  determining  that  the  Tuscaloosa  must  be  regarded  as  a  duly  commis- 
sioned ship  of  war.  An  account  has  also  been  given  of  the  seizure  of 
that  vessel,  and  of  the  orders  which  were  given  by  the  government  for 
her  release,  on  the  special  ground  that,  the  vessel  having  been  once 
allowed  to  enter  and  leave  the  port  as  a  recognized  ship  of  war,  and  no 
warning  having  been  given  to  the  otticer  in  charge  of  her  of  any  change 
of  intention  on  the  part  of  the  authorities,  he  was  fairly  entitled  to  as- 
sume that  she  would  be  again  received  in  the  same  character.  The 
Tuscaloosa  did  not,  however,  return  into  the  hands  of  the  confederate 
jjovernment,  but  was  eventually  handed  over  at  the  end  of  the  war  to 
the  United  States  consul  at  Cape  Town.' 

Of  the  amount  of  coal  supplied  to  the  Georgia  at  the  Cape  of  (rood 
Hope  there  is  iio  record.  It  would  seem  that  180  tons  Avere  forwarded 
to  Simon's  Bay  for  the  use  of  the  Alabama  on  the  19th  September,  18G3. 
The  Alabama  proceeded  to  the  Indian  Ocean,  and  took  in  afresh  supply 
(250  tons)  at  Singapore  on  the  23d  December.  She  returned  to  the  Cape 
of  Good  Hope  on  the  2()th  March,  18G4,  and  it  is  stated  in  the  Case  of 
the  United  States  that,  on  the  21st,  she  began  taking  on  board  fresh 
supplies  of  coal.  The  interval  between  the  two  supplies  is  thus  made 
out  to  be  two  days  less  than  three  calendar  months,  and  this  is  adduced 
as  a  "  fresh  violation  of  the  duties  of  Great  Britain  as  a  *neutral."^ 
[117]  The  authority  given  is  a  book  entitled  "  My  Adventures  Atloat,'' 
published  by  Captain  Semmes,  the  commander  of  the:  Alabama. 
One  of  the  passages  referred  to  is  as  follows,  (p.  744:) 

Wo  entered  Table  I>a.v  ou  the  'UHli  of  March,  and  on  the  next  day  (/.  t..  the  tilstj 
weliad  tlionsual  eqninijcthil  •••ah\     ^     »     «     The  <{ah' havhif;  moderated 
the  next  day,  (/.  e.,  the  •i2f\.)  lijfhteis  eain(!  ah)n<i'*ide.  anil  we  hei^an 
I'oaUn^. 

The  Alabama  did  not,  therefore,  begin  coaling  at  Table  r>av  on  the 
21st,  but  on  the  22d  of  March,  1804. 

Again,  on  referring  to  another  book  published  by  Captain  Semmes, 
"Tl»e  Cruise  of  the  Alabama  and  Sumter,"  the  following  passage  is 
found  relative  to  the  visit  of  the  Alabama  at  Singapore,  (p.  2.'{4:) 

TitcHilaji,  1  icci'mher '2'i. — At  !•.;{(•  a.  ni.  the  i)ilot  came  on  hoard,  and  we  ran  u\<  to  the 
New  Harbor  ak)ngHide  of  the  coalintf-depot  and  commenced  coaliny. 

And  on  referring  to  the  passage  of  the  "Adventures  Atloat,"  on  the 
same  subject,  it  will  be  found  stated  that  the  '•  coaling  lasted  ten 
hours."-' 

It  is  proved,  therefore,  from  the  very  authority  quoted  by  the  United 
States,  that  the  Alabama  had  taken  in  her  last  supply  of  coal  not  ou 
the  23d  but  on  the  22d  of  .December,  1803,  and  that  the  specified 
period  of  three  months  had  e.vactly  elapsed  before  she  began  taking  in 
a  fresh  supply.  J>ut  if  the  dates  had  really  been  as  alleged,  the  circum- 
stance would  have  i>roved  nothing  against  the  colonial  authorities,  still 
less  against  Great  Britain.  The  captain  of  the  Alabama  applied  for 
permission  to  coal  ou  the  ground  that  he  had  last  coaled  at  Singapore 
ou  or  about  the  21st  of  December.  The  governor  and  admiral  could 
have  had  no  means  of  checking  the  date  to  a  single  day,  and  the  per- 
mission was  granted  ou  the  faith  of  Captain  Semmes's  statement.  That 
statement  was  in  every  way  consistent  with  probability,  and  with  the 
facts  as  far  as  they  were  or  could  be  known  at  Cape  Town.  It  vrould 
surely  be  nothing  less  than  ridiculous  that  an  asserted  "  violation  of 

'  British  Case,  p.  115. 

•2  Case  of  the  United  States,  pp.  316,  386. 

'Page  715. 


'\i\ 


:w;o 


TULATV    OF    WASHINGTON 


tlie  ilutics  (»f  (In'iit  ISritc'iiii  as  a  ntnitral"  should  be  Jbuiui  to  dcpoiut  on 
a  (loiil)tt'iil  mistake  of  a  single  day,  on  the  ditfeicnci^  betuoiMi  lunar  or 
calendar  months,  or  on  the  fact  tliat  a  i)articular  February  fell  in  leiii. 
year. 

There  are  re(!ords,  on  the  other  hand,  of  eleven  visits  of  United  Stiito 
men-of-war  to  the  Cape  of  (lood  Hope,  three  of  which  received  coal;  hut 
Her  Majesty's  ffovernincnt  will  only  call  the  attention  of  the  tribunal  to 
one  of  tliese,  the  Vanderbilt.  This  vessel  obtained  at  the  IJritish  colony 
of  St.  Helena  on  the  18th  of  August,  1803,  400  tons  of  coal.  She  arrivoil 
at  Simon's  IJay,  Cape  of  Good  Hoi)e,  on  the  .'5d  of  Septen)ber,  rather 
more  than  a  fortnight  afterward,  and  remained  until  the  Hth,  takiii<^ 
on  board  1,000  tons  of  coal.  She  visited  the  Jlritish  colony  of  Mauritius 
ii  fortnight  later,  on  the  24th  of  the  same  month,  and  there  remained 
till  the  10th  of  October,  shipping  a  fresh  suj^ply  of  018  tons.  On  tin- 
2'2i\  of  that  month,  only  twelve  days  after  her  departure  from  Mauritius, 
she  reappeared  at  Cape  Town,  and  her  connnander  api)lied  for  perniis 
siou  to  remain  live  or  six  working  days,  for  the  purpose  of  makiim 
necessary  repairs,  and  also  to  get  a  supply  of  fuel.  The  governor,  as 
the  captain  reports,  "took  a  day  to  decide,"  and  then  replied,  grantinj; 
the  permission  for  the  Vanderbilt  to  remain  in  harbor,  but  stating 
that  he  did  not  think  his  instructions  would  admit  of  ids  giving  perniis 
sion  to  her  to  coal,  especially  as  it  was  notorious  that  the  three  supplier 
so  recently  received  had  been  expended  in  cruising.'  She  thus  committeii 
in  six  weeks  two  apparently  deliberate  breaches  of  the  regulations,  and 
attempted  a  third.  The  case  of  the  Vanderbilt  does  not  certainly  show 
any  hostile  rigor  on  the  part  of  the  authorities  at  the  Urltish  colonies 
which  that  vessel  visited. 


m 


IIECAVITULATION. 

Her  Majesty's  government  lia.s  now,  it  is  believed,  examined  all  the 
instances  brought  forward  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States 
to  support  the  charge  of  "excessive  hospitalities'' on  the 
part  of  British  authorities  to  confederate  cruisers  and  of  "  discourtesies 
to  vessels  of  war  of  the  United  States."  The  examination  has  shown 
how  groundless  is  that  charge,  and  with  how  little  reason  it  can  be  said 
that  the  rules  laid  down  as  to  the  treatment  of  belligerent  vessels  "  were 
often  utterly  disregarded"  in  the  case  of  confederate  ships  ot 
[118]  war,  and  *"  rigidly  enforced  against  the  United  States."  A  few- 
words  only  require  to  complete  the  comparison.  During  the 
course  of  the  civil  war  ten  confederate  cruisers  visited  British  ports. 
The  total  number  of  such  visits  was  twenty-five,  eleven  of  which  were 
made  for  the  purpose  of  effecting  repairs.  Coal  was  taken  in  at  sixteen 
of  these  visits,  and  on  sixteen  occasions  the  limit  of  stay  fixed  by  the 
regulations  was  exceeded.  In  one  of  these  cases,  however,  the  excess 
was  no  more  than  two  hours,  and  in  another,  the  delay  was  enforced  in 
order  to  allow  twenty-four  hours  to  elapse  between  the  departure  of  a 
United  States  merchant-vessel  and  that  of  the  confederate  cruiser.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  returns  which  have  been  procured  of  visits  of  United 
States  vessels  of  war  to  ports  of  Great  Britain  and  the  colonies,  though 
necessarily  imperfect,  show  an  aggregate  total  of  228  such  visits.  On 
thirteen  of  these,  repairs  were  effected ;  on  forty-five  occasions  supplies 
of  coal  were  obtained;  and  the  twenty-four  hours'  limit  of  stay  was 
forty-four  times  exceeded.    The  total  amount  of  coal  obtained  by  con- 

'Appendix  to  Caae  of  the  United  States,  vol.  vi,  pp.  145,  140. 


^^'^PT 


COCNTKK    CASK    OF    fiKKA'l     lUUTAIX. 


.'i6l 


ie«k*iaU'  <  ruiscrs  in  IJritish  ports  ilmiiif;  tlic  whole  i;om.s«'  of  the,  civil 
war,  tIionH;h  it  cannot  be  ascioituincd  with  accuracy,  n)a.v  he  cstinritcd 
in  have  amounted  to  about  2,800  tons.  The  afffjrojjate  amount  similarly 
supplied  to  vessels  of  the  United  States  cannot  be  estimated,  from  the 
want  of  data  as  to  the  supplies  in  many  cases,  but  those  cases  only  in 
which  the  quantities  are  re(!orded  show  a  total  of  over  .->,000  tons  ;  and 
tiiis  notwithstanding  the  United  States  Xavy  had  free  access  to  their 
own  coalins-depots,  often  close  at  hand.  In  one  case  noticed  above,  a 
vessel  of  war  of  the  United  States,  the  A'anderbilt,  alone  receiv<'d  2,000 
tons  of  coal  at  dillcrent  llritish  i)orts  within  the;  space  of  less  than  two 
months,  beinft'  more  than  two-thirds  t)f  the  whole  amount  obtained  from 
first  to  last  by  confederate  vessels. 

It  has  been  seen  that  of  tin?  three  instances  in  which  tlic  United 
States  assert  that  confederate  vessels  were  allow«'d  to  coal  in  contra- 
vention of  the  rules  of  .lanuaiy  .'51,  1802,  one  alone,  the  coalin*;'  of  the 
Florida  at  JJarbados,  can  in  any  way  l»»»  consideied  a  departure  from 
those  rules,  an<l  that  only  in  a  limited  sense. 

Other  instances  of  infractions  of  the  rules  by  United  States  vessels 
are  known  to  have  occurred  besides  that  of  the  N'andcrbilt.  The  case 
of  the  Tuscarora  has  already  been  alluded  to.  The  Kearsar^c  after 
receiving  91  tons  or  coal  at  Dover,  on  the  2d  of  August,  1  •:!, coaled 
again  at  Darbados,  on  the  2.'Jd  of  October.  The  Sacramento  to  ti.  in  87.] 
tons  at  Cork  between  the  28th  July  and  the  1st  August,  in  tlmi  year. 
She  obtained  2o  tons  more  at  riymonth,  on  the  10th  of  Ai^-'ust,  and  .*>0 
tons  more  were  sent  out  to  her  from  Dover  by  the  United  '  ates  consul, 
ill  a  vessel  which  left  without  clearance  for  the  purpose,  on  the  2.'id  of 
the  same  month,  li  \- us  not  thought  necessary  to  take  any  nut i(!e  oi" 
ihis  occurrence  at  the  tinu',  but  a  regulation  was  afterward  made  to 
prevent  such  a  practice  being  resorted  to  in  the  future  for  the  i)nri)ose 
of  evading  the  regulations.  The  United  States  vessel  Wyoming  made 
use  of  the  port  of  JJong-Kong  in  a  similar  manner,  anchoring  just  out- 
side of  British  waters,  and  obtaining  coal  and  sup|>lies  in  boats.  This 
she  did  in  February,  1803,  and  again  in  February,  1804.  On  the  second 
occasion  she  is  believed  to  have  anchored  within  the  British  limits.  She 
obtained  Wo  tons  of  coal,  having  been  supplied  in  the  previous  Decem- 
ber with  120  tons  at  the  British  colony  at  Labuan ;  and  this,  although 
there  was  a  depot  lor  the  United  States  at  Macao.  The  Narraganset 
again  is  recorded  to  have  coaled  twicte  within  three  mouths  at  Esqui- 
maux Point,  in  British  Columbia — once  on  the  23d  of  November,  1803, 
the  second  time  in  January,  18G4.' 

Her  Majesty's  government  wishes  to  be  understood  as  (pioting  these 
instances  not  in  recrimination  but  in  self-defense.  There  may  not  im- 
probably ha^  e  been,  in  some  of  these  cases,  reasons  to  excuse  a  depart- 
ure from  the  strict  letter  of  the  regulations.  All  that  is  sought  to  prove 
is  that  those  regulations  were  not  enforced  against  the  vessels  of  the 
United  States  in  any  invidious  manner ;  that  the  officers  of  the  United 
States  Navy  were  treated  with  courtesy  and  leniency,  even  when,  on 
some  occasions,  their  conduct  did  not  show  any  very  scrupulous  respect 
tor  the  conditions  on  which  thehospitality  of  British  ports  was  extended 
to  them ;  and  that  the  facts  by  which  the  United  States  seek  to  prove 
a  lax  observance,  to  their  disadvantage,  of  the  duties  of  neutrality, 
might  with  more  justice  be  invoked  in  suj)port  of  a  directly  opposite 
conclusion. 


'See  Retmii  of  visits  of  United  Stutcs  vessels  to  British  ports.    Appendix  to  Brit- 
isli  Case,  vol.  v,  pp.  228,  233,  934. 


362 


TRKATY   OF    WA.SHINGTON. 


Her  Majesty's  government  will  ask  the  tribunal  to  suppose  the  cas« 
reversed — that  the  vessels  of  the  Confederate  States  had  been  allowed 
the  indulgences  which  were  shown  to  those  of  the  United  States,  and 
that  United  States  vessels  had  been  subjected  to  precautions  such  as 
were  often  enforced  against  cou federate  cruisers.  A  moment's  reflection 
will  show  that,  if  complaints  ;i  id  claims  are  to  be  made  on  such  grounds, 
the  United  States  would  have  had  much  more  reason  to  make  them  ou 
such  a  supposition  than  they  have  under  the  circumstances  as  tliey 

really  stand. 
[119]       *Her  Majesty's  government  regrets  to  have  been  compelled  to 

lay  before  the  tribunal  in  this  sectiou  a  number  of  details  which 
have  so  slight  a  bearing  on  the  questions  referred  to  it,  and  many  of 
which  are  so  trivial  in  themselves.  But  it  was  due  to  the  arbitrators,  as 
well  as  to  the  United  States,  that  this  long  series  of  accusations  should 
not  be  left  unanswered. 

COUl^SE  PURSUED  BY  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


Course  pursued  hy 
t  !her  I'lnintriH!.. 


Hulland. 


Before  quitting  this  subject  it  may  be  well  to  notice  briefly  the  course 
which  was  purSn.  '  under  similar  circumstances  by  other 
governments,  whobO  conduct  the  United  States  have  placed 
in  contrast  with  that  of  Great  Britain,  and  against  whom  they  declare 
that  they  have  no  serious  cause  of  complaint.^ 
1.  To  instance,  in  the  first  place,  the  conduct  of  the  Netherlands.  The 
Sumter  twice  visited  the  ports  of  Dutch  possessions  in  the 
East  Indies  within  the  space  of  six  weeks ;  that  of  Saint 
Anne's,  Curacoa,  on  the  13th  July,  1861 ;  that  of  Paramaribo  on  the 
10th  August.  On  the  first  occasion  she  remained  eight  days  in  port ; 
on  the  second,  eleven  days.  In  both  instances  she  took  in  more  than 
100  tons  of  coal.  At  the  British  port  of  Trinidad  the  Sumter  remained 
only  six  days  and  ttfok  in  only  80  tons  of  coal.  The  United  States 
Government  addressed,  as  Mr.  Seward  said,  "  very  serious  remon- 
strances" to  the  Netherlands  government  on  the  subject.^  The  essence 
of  those  remonstrances  was,  that  the  Sumter  was  not  merely  a  privateer, 
but  a  pirate.  The  Netherlands  government,  on  the  other  hand,  main- 
tained tiiat  she  was  a  ship  of  war.  It  decided,  however,  to  issue  orders 
that  no  armed  vessel  of  either  belligerent  should  be  allowed  to  remain 
more  than  forty-eight  hours  in  Dutch  ports,  or  to  take  in  more  coal  than 
would  be  suflicient  for  twenty-four  hours'  consumption.  Although  the 
ITnited  States  Government  was  expressly  warned  that  this  restriction 
must  apply  to  vessels  of  their  Navy,  as  well  as  to  those  of  their  opponents, 
the  regulation  Avas  accepted  as  satisfactory,  until  applied  to  a  United 
States  ship,  the  Irofjuois,  which  touched  at  Cura(;oa  in  November,  1801. 
On  learning  the  restrictions  placed  upon  his  visit,  the  commander  of 
the  Irocpiois  declined  to  enter  the  port  upon  such  terms,  and  in  this 
decision  he  was  sustained  by  his  Government,  who  called  for  a  repeal  of 
the  obnoxious  regulation.  The  Netherlands  goverimient,  it  appears,  had 
already  revoked  the  regulation,  at  the  instance  of  the  governor  of  Cura- 
coa, and  they  explained  that  no  restrictions  would  in  future  be  placed 
on  the  stay  or  supplies  of  American  men-of-war  in  Dutch  ports.'  The 
United  States  Government,  however,  were  not  satistted.  In  February. 
18G2,  Mr.  Seward  again  directed  the  United  States  minister  at  The 
Hague  to  call  attention  to  the  "  subject  of  the  intrusion  of  piratical 

'  Case  of  the  United  States,  p.  462. 

-  Ibid.,  p.  463. 

'Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  vi,  pp.  91,  94. 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    (JREAT    HKITAIX. 


363 


American  vessels  se«kiiigr  shelter  in  the  ports  of  the  Netherhiiuls  unci 
their  colonies." 

If  [ho  said]  yon  cannot  obtain  a  decrop  cxchiding  tlioni  alto<;other,  it  is  tliOHj;iit 
that  the  government  will  have  no  hesitation  in  restoring  the  restrictive  policy  which 
waa  adopted  by  it  under  the  represe  itation  of  its  foreign  affairs  by  Barou  Van  Znylen.' 

The  Netherlands  minister  for  foreign  affairs  replied,  in  a  long  and  able 
note,  in  which  he  once  more  justified  the  attitude  of  his  country,  and 
declined  to  return  to  the  former  policy  of  restriction. 

In  this  regard  [lie  wrote]  I  permit  myself  to  observe  to  yon,  that  I  cotild  not 
understand  how  your  government  could  desire  the  re-establishmeut  of  measures  which 
actually  were,  and  would  again,  be  applicable  to  both  parties,  and  which  were  at  th<- 
time  the  cause  why  the  Union  ship  Iroquois  would  not  enter  the  port  of  Curavoa  under 
the  rule  of  the  said  restrictive  measures.  *  *  If  the  instructiouK  given  before  the 
month  of  December,  1861,  were  now  returned  to,  the  government  of  the  Netherlands 
might  not  only  be  taxed,  with  good  rocison,  with  triding,  b»it  would  hurt  its  own 
interests,  as  well  as  those  of  the  Union,  considering  that  the  consequence  of  the  said 
instructions  would  be,  as  has  been  remarked  in  the  communication  of  Barou  de  Zuylen. 
dated  October  29,  1861,  that  the  vessels  of  war  of  the  United  States,  also,  could  no 
longer  be  able  to  sojourn  in  the  Netherland  West  Indian  ports  more  than  twice  twenty  - 
four  hours,  nor  supply  themselves  with  coal  for  a  run  of  more  than  tweutj'-four  hours.- 

It  is  difficult  to  understand  on  what  ground  Great  Britain  is  to  be  held 
liable  for  the  acts  of  the  Sumter,  while  the  course  pursued  by  Holland 
is  considered  to  give  the  United  States  no  serious  cause  of  complaint. 
On  looking  for  the  reasons  assigned,  they  are  found  to  be  as  fol- 
lows: 

[120]     *The  government  of  the  Netherlands  forbade  privateers  to  enter  its  ports,  and 
warned  the  inhabitants  of  the  Netherlautls  ami  the  King'ssnltjects  abroad  not  t<> 
accept  letters  of  marque.    The  United  States  have  no  knowledge  that  these  orders 
were  disobeyed.^ 

Her  Majesty's  government  are  not  aware  that,  among  the  numerouv^ 
charges  brought  against  Great  Britain  in  the  Case  of  the  United 
States,  it  is  anywhere  alleged  that  a  privateer  of  either  party  entered 
a  British  port,  or  that  any  British  subject  accepted  a  letter  of  marque 
during  the  war.  It  is  indeed  true  that  in  official  correspondence  and 
in  other  documents  and  speeches  during  the  war,  it  was  the  common 
practice  of  the  Government  and  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  to< 
apply  to  the  confederate  cruisers  the  denomination  of  "privateers''  as 
well  as  that  of  "pirates;"  bnt  it  is  certain  that  none  of  these  cruisers 
were  priv.ateers  in  the  legal  and  only  proper  sense  of  that  term. 

2.  Let  us  now  turn  to  the  course  adopted  by  Brazil.  The  Sumter, 
after  leaving  Paramaribo,  touched  at  the  port  of  San  Juan  ^     , 

(le  Maranham,  where  she  remained  ten  days,  and  took  in 
100  tons  of  coal.  The  United  States  consul  at  that  port  a<ldressed  a 
protest  to  the  governor,  but  the  latter  replied  that  the  Sumter  must  be 
regarded  as  a  belligerent  vessel,  and  as  such  allowed  to  supply  herself 
with  coal.  A  long  correspondence  followed  between  the  Brazilian 
government  and  the  United  States  minister,  who  denounced  the  con 
tliict  of  the  president  of  the  province  of  Maranham  as  "  an  unfriendly 
act  toward  the  United  States,  and  a  gross  breach  of  neutrality,"*  but 
the  Brazilian  government  maintained  that  their  officer  had  been  right, 
that  the  Confederate  States  must  be  regarded  as  belligerents,  and  the 
Sumter  as  a  ship  of  war.  Wuen,  in  June,  18G2,  after  more  than  seven 
months'  discussion,  the  Marquis  d'Abrantes,  who  had  recently  become 
Brazilian  minister  for  foreign  afiiiirs,  wrote  to  terminate  the  controversy^ 

'Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  vi,  p.  95. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  29. 

»Ca8e  of  the  United  States,  p.  463. 

••  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  vi,  p.  67. 


364 


TREATY    OF    WASIIIN(JTO\. 


I 


i 


and  observed  that  nothing  had  resulted  to  alter  the  relations  of  frieud 
snip  and  good  understanding  between  the  *.wo  countries,  the  United 
States  minister  at  once  replied  in  a  note,  of  which  he  stated  the  sole 
object  to  be,  "  to  point  out  that,  so  far  from  nothing  having  occurred  to 
disturb  the  good  feeling  upon  which  are  based  the  friendly  relations 
between  the  United  States  and  Brazil,  the  whole  course  of  your  prede 
cessor  in  relation  to  the  visits  of  the  pirate  Sumter  to  Maranham,  and 
the  present  attitude  of  Brazil  toward  the  piratical  vessels  belonging  to 
the  rebel  States  and  to  our  own  national  vessels,  is  considered  by  tho 
Government  of  Washington  untenable,  unjust,  and  intolerable."  In  a 
dispatch  wliich  had  already  been  communicated  to  the  Brazilian  govera- 
ment,  Mr.  Seward  had  urged  that  further  restrictions  should  be  placed 
on  the  stay  of  confederate  cruisers  in  Brazilian  ports.  The  passage  to 
this  effect,  which  the  United  States  minister  again  brought  to  ibe 
notice  of  the  Brazilian  government,  was  as  follows : 

In  tlic  moan  time  it  is  proper  to  romiirk  that  every  maritime  i»o\v<-r  wliieli  has  reroju- 
nized  the  insnrfjeuts  as  a  belligerent,  except  lirazil,  has,  on  the  other  hand,  adopted 
stringent  means  to  prevent  tho  entrance  of  piratical  vessels  into  their  harbors,  except 
in  distress,  an«l  has  forbidden  them  remaining  there  mon*  than  tweuty-fonr  hours,  or 
receiving  supplies  which  wotild  enable  them  to  renew  depredations  upon  our  com- 
merce. 

The  United  States  do  not  say  thai  such  measures  on  the  part  of  Brazil  would  bt 
satisfactory,  nor  can  they  consent  to  ask  lirazii  for  less  than  the  absolute  exclusion  of 
pirates  from  her  harbors.  Yet  snch  measures,  if  adopted,  would  bring  Brazil  upon 
the  same  ground  in  relation  to  the  United  States  which  is  occupied  by  other  niaritiiiif 
powers,  and  thus  would  mitigate  the  discontent  which  you  are  authorized  to  express.' 

With  this  request  the  government  of  Brazil  did  not  think  fit  to  comply. 
The  regulations  issued  by  it  in  August,  1801,  did  not  restrict  the  stay 
of  belligerent  vessels  in  Brazilian  ports,  unless  they  came  in  with  prizes. 
The  regulations  also  permitted  the  taking  in  of  victuals  and  naval  pro- 
visions, indispensable  for  the  continuation  of  the  voyage,  without 
placing  any  specific  limit  on  such  provisions,  or  fixingany  period  within 
which  a  fresh  supply  should  not  be  granted.  The  Brazilian  minister  for 
foreign  affairs  called  the  attention  of  tlu  United  States  minister  to  the 
principles  of  neutrality  laid  down  in  these  regulations  as  "  being  per 
fectly  identical  with  those  which  are  adopted  and  followed  by  othei 
maritime  powers.''^ 

In  April  and  May,  18B3,  the  Florida,  Georgia,  aad  Alabama  visited 
different  ports  of  Brazil,  and  remained  there  for  some  time  coaliug  and 
repairing.  The  Alabama,  having  made  captures  within  the  territorial 
waters  of  Brazil,  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  island  of  Fernando  de 
Noronha,  was  ordered  by  the  president  of  Pernambuco,  on  the  27th  of 

April,  to  put  to  sea  within  twenty-four  hours,  and  left  accord 
|121]    ingly.    She  reappeared,  however,  in  *the  harbor  of  Bahia on  the 

11th  of  May,  and  remained  there  fourteen  days.  These  proceed 
ings  gave  rise  to  further  remonstrances  on  the  part  of  the  United  States 
minister,  who  protested  against  any  of  the  three  vessels  being  admitted 
into  Brazilian  ports,  and  maintained  that  the  Alabama  should  have 
been  seized  and  detaine<l  at  Bahia.  The  Brazilian  government  replied 
that  tiie  course  pursued  toward  these  vessels  had  been  right ;  that 
they  must  be  received  on  the  same  terms  as  cruisers  of  the  United 
States ;  and  that  the  president  of  Bahia  could  not  do  otherwise  than 
receive  tho  Alabama  in  thiVu  port  in  the  absence  of  positive  evidence  of 
her  having  infringed  the  neutrality  of  Brazil.  This,  it  was  stated,  was 
not  forthcoming  at  the  time,  the  investigation  of  the  subject  being  still 
in  progress. 

'  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  vi,  p.  40. 
« Ibid.,  p.  48. 


COUNTER   CASE   OF   GREAT   BRITAIN. 


36/> 


'wm 


~ 


w 


lustructious  were,  however,  issued  by  the  government  of  Brazil,  in 
June,  1863,  defining  the  construction  to  be  phiced  on  the  regulations  of 
August,  1861,  and  the  i>recaution8  to  be  taken  for  their  observance. 
With  regard  to  the  limitation  of  supplies  to  such  as  were  necessary  for 
tbe  continuation  of  the  voyage,  it  was  stated  that  this  provision  pre- 
supposed that  the  vessel  was  bound  for  some  port.  Such  ])resuppositiou 
would  not  hold  good  if  the  same  vessel  should  seek  to  enter  a,  port  re- 
peatedly, or  if,  after  having  procured  supplies  in  one  port,  she  should 
enter  another  immediately  afterward  under  the  same  pretext,  except  in 
the  case  of  overruling  necessity.  Any  vessel  committing  a  violation  of 
neutrality  was  to  be  at  once  compelled  to  leave  the  waters  of  lirazil ; 
and  the  Alabama,  having  been  guilty  of  acts  of  this  nature,  was  not 
again  to  bo  received  in  any  port  of  the  empire. 

The  Florida,  against  which  no  such  breach  of  neutrality  had  been 
charged,  returned  to  Brazil  in  August,  1864,  and  at  Bahia  was  again 
received  as  a  vessel  of  war. 

It  will  be  seen,  then,  that  the  principles  on  which  the  regulations  of 
tbe  Brazilian  government  were  framed  were  the  same  in  substance  as 
those  applied  by  Great  Britain.  It  was  considered  tliat  confederate 
vessels  must  be  received  on  the  same  footing  as  those  of  the  United 
States ;  that  they  must  be  allowed  the  supplies  necessary  for  the  voyage 
on  which  they  were  engaged ;  that  the  si'izure  or  detention  of  such  a 
vessel  would  be  a  breach  of  neutrality;  and  that,  to  justify  even  her 
dismissal  from  a  Brazilian  port,  evidence  of  a  violation  of  Brazilian 
neutrality  committed  by  her  as  a  belliger'?nt  vessel  must  first  be  obtained. 

On  these  conditions  the  Sumter,  Florida,  Georgia,  and  Alabama, 
Vvcre  admitted  to  Brazilian  ports.  The  last-named  vessel  having  cap- 
tured and  burnt  prizes  within  the  waters  of  Brazil,  instructions  were 
issued  to  exclude  her  for  the  future.  A  similar  prohibition  was  issued 
against  the  Shenandoah,  not  from  any  doubt  as  to  her  status  as  a  ship 
of  war,  but  on  the  ground  that  her  commander  had  violated  the  seal  of 
the  Brazilian  consulate.  In  neither  case,  however,  did  any  occasion 
occur  for  enforcing  the  prohibition,  as  the  Alabama  did  not  return  to 
the  coast  of  Brazil  after  she  left  Bahia,  nor  did  the  Shenandoah  ever 
visit  a  Brazilian  port. 

3.  "The  Eussian   government,"  it  is   said  by  the   United   States,. 
''  ordered  that  even  the  flag  of  men-of-war  belonging  to  the 
seceded  States  must  not  be  saluted."  ^ 

Her  Majesty's  government  itself  issued  similar  orders  addressed  to 
all  governors  of  British  colonies.^    These  orders  were  as  follows  : 

[Circular.] 

Downing  Stukkt,  Jannanj  11,  1804. 
8n{;  Her  Majesty's  government  have  had  occasion  to  consider  whether  salutes  can 
properly  be  exchanged  between  the  forts  in  Her  Majesty's  colonies  and  vessels  of  war 
(tf  tiio  Confederate  States, 

I  liave  to  instruct  you  that,  in  case  the  commander  of  any  such  vessel  should  otferyou 
u  salute,  it  will  be  your  duty  to  decline  it ;  and  that  if  the  salute  should  be  tired  without 
having  been  previously  offered,  it  should  not  be  returned. 

In  each  case  the  commander  of  the  vessel  should  be  informed  that  the  reason  for  de- 
clining to  receive  or  return  such  salutes  is,  that  the  Confederate  States  have  not  been 
acknowledged  by  this  country  otherwise  than  as  belligerents. 
I  have  &.G 
(Signed)     '  NEWCASTLE. 


'  Case  of  the  Uuited  States,  p.  404. 
'Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  v,  p.  129. 


I'''-!...  i'il 
Li.-.!.;.  !E4<iM 


see 


TRKATV    OF    WASIIINGTOX. 


The  |{;ii()j.iii.iiniu<  k. 


The  incident  which  gave  occ.ision  to  this  is  stated  in  the  Case  of  Groat 
Britain,  page  70. 
4.  Tlie  French  authorities  received  the  Sumter,  Florida,  Alabama,  and 
Georgia  in  French  ports  on  the  footing  of  men-of-war,  and 
allowed  theui  to  take  in  supplies  of  coals  and  provisions. 
The  Florida  and  Georgia  were  allowed  to  remain  several  mouths  at  Brest 
and  Cherbourg  repairing.     When  the  United  States  minister  at  Paris 
protested  against  the  Florida  receiving  repairs  of  her  machinery, 
!l2L*j    on  the  ground  that  she  was  a  good  *sailer,  M.  Drouyn  de  Isluivs 
replied  that  "if  she  were  deprived  of  her  machinery  she  would  be 
pro  tanto  disabled,  oripi)led,  and  liable,  like  a  duck  with  its  wings  cut. 
to  be  at  once  caught  by  the  United  States  steamers.     He  said  it  would 
be  no  fair  answer  to  say  the  duck  had  legs,  and  could  walk  or  swim. 
He  further  .justified  the  permission  given  to  her  to  repair  in  a  govern- 
ment dock,  there  being  no  comnier<Mal  dock  at  Brest.    The  Florida  hav- 
ing discharged  seventy  or  seventy-ftve  men  after  she  came  into  Brest, 
the  French  government  decided  not  to  issue  any  order  prohibiting  an 
accession  to  her  crew  while  in  port,  inasmuch  as  such  accession  was 
necessary  to  her  navigation." 
Attention  has  been  called  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States  to  the  treat 
ment  of  the  Kappahannock  at  Calais,  as  forming  a  contrast 
to  the  reception  of  confederate  vessels  in  British  ports. '  This 
vessel,  an  old  dispatch-boat,  originally  called  the  Victor,  had  been  sold 
out  of  the  Jjritish  Xavy  as  worn  out  and  unserviceable.    She  appears  to 
have  passed  from  the  hands  of  her  purchasers  into  those  of  agents  of 
the  Confederate  States,  who,  fearing  discovery,  hurriedly-  carried  herort 
in  a  condition  unfit  for  sea,  and  took  her  into  the  harbor  of  Calais  as  a 
confederate  ship  of  war,  though  neither  equipped,  manned,  nor  armed. 
The  United  States  minister  at  Paris  urged  that  this  was  an  exceptional 
ease,  and  such  in  fact  it  was.     '^V' riting  to  M.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  on  the 
4th  December,  18Go,  he  said : 

It  is  i|uite  evident  that  this  vessel  uecupies  a  position  which  difters  from  citlicr  tin 
Floiida  or  Georgia.  Slie  lias  left  her  port  on  the  other  side  of  the  chaunel  voluntarily, 
withont  papers,  and  ran  directly  across  to  a  neighboring  port,  within  which  she  hopes 
to  be  protected  until  her  eqniiiment  is  completed,  and  her  oHicers  and  crew  ready.  On 
this  statement  of  facts  no  argnnient  is  necessary  to  show  that  permission  from  tho 
French  authorities--  to  carry  out  her  purpose  would  be  a  violation  of  neutrality.* 

The  French  government  replied  that  the  EappahauLock  appeared  to 
have  been  compelled,  by  unforeseen  circumstances,  to  take  refuge  in 
French  waters ;  that  she  could  not  therefore  be  refused  an  asylum,  but 
that  the  facilities  accorded  to  her  would  be  limited  strictlj^  to  what  was 
required  for  the  equipment  and  seaworthiness  of  an  ordinary  vessel  of 
commerce.  The  United  States  minister  continued  to  urge  the  excep- 
tional nature  of  the  case,  and,  in  deference  to  his  representations,  special 
precautious  were  taken  to  prev^eut  any  warlike  equipment  of  the  vessel. 
It  was  decided  that  she  should  not  be  allowed  to  depart  without  first 
obtaining  permission,  and,  in  order  to  guard  against  any  attempt  of 
such  a  kind,  a  gun-boat  was  stationed  to  watch  her.  The  repairs  were 
proceeded  with,  and  changes  were  made  anaong  the  crew,  without  adding 
to  their  number,  for  some  time.  Subsequently,  however,  it  was  discov- 
ered that  her  crew  had  been  nearly  doubled,  and  the  permission  for  her 


'  British  Case,  p.  71. 

-Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  "',  p.  1S6. 

'Case  of  the  United  States,  pp.  21hi,  'Zm. 

^Papers  relatii.g  to  Foreign  Atlairs,  IHfilMU,  vol.  iii.pp.4,  ll«. 'J  1. •.':{. •i:<r.,  «1.  44, r.l.r.;?, 

rn,  81. 


COIfNTER    CASK    OF    kKKAJ     BKITAIN. 


367 


L'ssion  was 


(ieparture  wiis  on  this  account  provisionally  lefiised.  As  shf  hail  been 
quite  unfitted  for  war  on  her  arrival,  these  measures  rendered  her  prac- 
tically useless  tor  the  confederate  ser\  ice,  and  her  officers  determined 
to  abandon  the  attempt  to  employ  her,  and  to  leave  her  in  the  port  of 
Calais.' 

Attention  has  also  been  called  to  the  case  of  the  confederate  steam- 
rum  Stonewall.  That  vessel  was  one  of  six  ships  built  for 
the  confederate  government  in  France  under  a  contract  with 
Captain  Bullock,  to  be  paid  for  out  of  the  jiroceeds  of  the  confederate 
loan  issued  through  the  agency  of  Messrs.  l'>rlanger  in  J'aris.  According 
to  French  law,  the  permission  of  the  government  is  required  before  ves- 
sels constructed  in  French  iK)rts  can  be  armed  for  war,  and  this  permis- 
sion M.  Arnmn,  the  builder  of  the  vessels,  had  procured,  on  the  pretext 
tliat  they  were  intended  for  employment  in  the  China  seas.  AVhen  the 
United  States  minister  laid  evidence  before  the  French  government  of 
the  real  i)urposo  for  which  these  vessels  were  designed,  the  authorization 
to  arm  them  was  withdrawn,  and  an  assurance  was  given  that  they 
.should  not  be  allowed  to  pass  into  the  hands  of  the  confederate  govern- 
ment. M.  Annan  was,  however,  allowed  to  proceed  with  the  construc- 
tion of  them,  and  they  were  eventually  dispi»se«l  of  to  diflerent  neutral 
•governments.  One  of  them  was  sold  conditionally  to  the  Danish  gov- 
ernment, but  rejected  by  the  officer  api)ointed  by  that  government  to 
inspect  her  at  Bonleaux,  as  not  coining  within  the  terms  of  the  contract. 
Permission  was  obtained  to  send  her  to  ('openhagen,  from  whence,  the 
Danish  Government  having  confirmed  the  decision  of  their  officer,  she 
returned  to  the  French  coast,  shipped  a  crew,  arms,  and  a  supply  of  coal 
at  the  small  island  of  ilouat,  ofi"  St.  Xazaire,  and  proceeded  on  her  voy- 
age as  the  confederate  steamer  Olinde  or  Stonewall.  The  United 
[123]  States  minister  at  Paris  thought,  probably  with  Justice,  *that 
there  were  grounds  for  believing  that  the  intention  of  using  her 
for  the  confederate  service  had  been  formed  before  she  left  France,  and 
that  the  sending  her  to  Copenhagan  was  a  mere  pretext ;  and  the  French 
government  ordered  an  investigation  into  the  circumstances;  but  it  ex- 
pressly disclaimed  any  responsibility 'for  what  had  occurred,  and  de 
cliiied  to  interfere  to  procure  the  detention  of  the  Stonewall  in  the 
Spanish  port  of  Ferrol,  to  which  she  had  i)ro(!eeded. 

5.  The  Stonewall  arrived  at  Corunim  on  the  .id  of  February,  1SG.">, 
from  whence  she  removed  to  the  neighboring  jtort  of  Ferrol. 
In  January,  1802,  when  the  Sumter  arrived  in  the  port  of 
Cadiz,  the  Spanish  government  had  decided  that  she  must  be  allowed  to 
make  such  repairs  as  were  absolutely  necessary,  and  had  for  that  pur- 
pose alloweil  her  to  be  placed  in  a  government  dock  for  two  days,  not- 
withstanding the  protest  of  the  United  States  minister.  The  govern 
meut  came  to  '^  similar  conclusion  in  the  case  of  the  Stonewall,  and  she 
remained  at  lerioi  refitting  for  sea  till  the  24th  of  ]\Iarch. 

The  Koveriimcnt  of  Her  M.ijosty  [wrote  M,  Bcuaviilos]  coiikl  not  disregard  the  voice 
of  humanity  in  perfect  hannony  with  the  hiws  of  nentrality,  and  does  not  think  tliey 
are  violated  by  allowing  a  vessel  only  the  r«'pairs  (strictly  necessary  to  navigate  with- 
out endangering  the  lives  of  the  crew.-' 

The  United  States  war  steamers  Niagara  and  Sacramento  had  in  the 
meanwhile  arrived  at  Corunua,  from  whence  they  kept  watch  on  her 
movements.  From  Ferrol  they  followed  her  to  Lisbon,  the  commander 
of  the  Niagara  considering  the  Stouew  all  too  formidable  to  cope  with 
at  sea  in  calm  weather.' 


riri'l  l*'trtim' 


1  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  ii,  p.  671. 

''  Papers  relating  to  Foreign  Affairs,  1865-'66,  part  ii,  p.  524. 

'Ibid.,  p.  551. 


m 


i 


3G8 


TREATY    OF    WANHINCITON. 


At  Lisbon  tlie  Portuguese  government  allowed  her  to  remain  twent^\ 
four  hours  and  take  in  a  supply  of  coal.    On  this  latter  p'^int,  the  for 
eign  minister  of  Portugal  observed,  in  reply  to  the  representations  of 
the  United  States  minister — 

Regardinj;  tlio  supply  of  coal,  asninst  which  you  insist,  allow  mo  to  obsei'Vf  rlmr 
the  vessel  beiii};  a  stuainer,  His  Majesty's  govoiiuiieiit  could  not  avoid  with  good  foim. 
dation  that  she  should  be  provided  with  that  articlo,  for  the  same  reason  that  it  c(iiil(; 
not  deny  to  auy  sailing-vessel  in  a  dismantled  state  to  provide  itself  with  sails.' 

The  Stonewall  next  proceeded  to  the  Spanish  island  of  TeneriflFe.  and 
from  thence  to  Havana,  where  she  arrived  on  the  11th  of  May,  and 
where,  at  the  close  of  the'civil  war,  she  was  surrendered  to  the  Spanisli 
authorities  by  her  commander  on  the  payment  of  $1G,000.  By  the 
Spanish  government  she  was  handed  over  to  that  of  the  United  States. 
The  latter  repaid  the  sum  expended  in  obtaining  possession  of  her. 

In  the  conduct  of  other  powers,  when  compared  with  that  of  Great 
Britain,  there  is  certainly  nothing  to  justify  the  United  States  in  pre 
ferring  claims  against  the  latter  for  undue  i)artiality  to  confederate 
cruisers,  while  at  the  same  time  disavowing  any  ground  of  complaint 
against  the  former.  It  may  suit  the  United  States  to  give  this  assiir 
ance  for  the  purposes  of  the  present  arbitration,  but  no  such  assurance 
can  be  given  for  the  future.  If  the  charge  against  Great  Britain  is  to 
bo  held  valid  in  the  present  instance,  it  is  impossible  to  say  what  line 
of  conduct,  however  scrupulous,  however  courteous,  will  protect  a  ueu 
tral  power  from  demands  for  compensation  from  one  or  the  other,  or 
even  from  both,  of  two  belligerent  parties. 


'  Papers  relating  to  Foreign  Affairs,  ISfi.'j-'Gfi,  part  iii,  p.  11^. 


':  if 


PART  X 


CONCLUSION. 


KECAPITULATIOX  OF   THK  ARGUMENT  FOR   GREAT  BRITAIN. 


Uer  Mfi.jost.v's  government  lias  deemed  it  convenient,  both  in  the 
Case  which    it    has    previously    presented,    antl    in    this     p,^,  x  -comi,.- 
Counter  Case,  to  place  before  tlie  arbitrators,  as  clearly  as  '"■"■ 
possible,  the  nature  and  general  limits  of  the  questions  ,h"",;,^'!",l."!r"fur 
wiiich  they  are  about  to  decide.  "•""■  """"" 

The  comparatively  novel  character  of  these  questions,  the  importance 
of  them,  the  number  and  variety  of  the  facts  which  may  be  supposed  to 
bear  on  them,  appeared  to  make  this  course  not  only  convenient,  but 
necessary;  and  the  necessity*  has  been  enhanced  by^  a  circumstance 
peculiar  to  this  controversy.  The  war  which  commenced  in  April, 
18(51,  and  ended  in  May,  1805,  was  a  civil  war ;  and  it  was  hard,  even 
for  a  government  which  had  again  and  again  i)roclaimed  itself  neutral 
iu  similar  contests  occurring  elsewhere,  to  reconcile  itself  to  the  assump- 
tion, ill  its  own  case,  of  the  same  attitude  by  other  nations.  Every 
occasion  on  which  that  neutrality  had  to  be  practically  asserted  was 
painful,  and  perhaps  naturally  painful,  to  the  United  States.  But  neu- 
trality, iu  a  war  wholly  or  partly  maritime,  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  as 
regards  maritime  powers,  a  merely  negative  condition.  States,  the  most 
remote  from  the  principal  theater  of  hostilities,  may  yet,  through  their 
.sliipi)ing,  or  their  colonial  possessions,  be  brought  into  contact  with 
those  hostilities  in  various  parts  of  the  world,  and  questions  will  thus 
arise  which  cannot  be  avoided  or  put  aside  by  mere  inaction.  In  the 
case  of  Great  Britain,  the  points  of  contact,  and  therefore  the  occasions 
of  complaint,  were  greatly  multiplied  by  the  diffusion  of  her  maritime 
interests,  the  magnitude  of  her  commercial  marine,  the  number  of  her 
colonies,  the  activity  of  her  manufacturing  industries,  and  the  almost 
unbounded  liberty  which  her  laws  allow  to  trade.  The  feelings  of 
annoyance  which  the  impartial  neutrality  of  Great  Britain  excited,  in 
many  ways,  and  under  many  circumstances,  in  the  Government  and 
people  of  the  United  States,  were,  it  was  hoped  by  Her  Britannic  Maj- 
esty's government,  almost,  if  not  quite,  forgotten ;  these  were  matters, 
at  all  iBvents,  which  neither  this  government,  nor  i)robably  any  other, 
would  have  thought  it  right  to  refer  to  any  arbitrators,  however  care- 
fully selected.  But  the  claims  which  are  submitted  to  the  tribunal  are 
of  a  different  character.  The  United  States  believes  them  just ;  Great 
Britain  believes  them  erroneous.  Both  nations  agree  in  regarding  them 
as  proper  to  be  referred  to  an  independent  and  impartial  decision. 
Hence,  the  importance  of  separating  these  claims  from  the  various  mat- 
ters of  complaint  or  causes  of  dissatisfaction  with  which  they  were  long 
associated  iu  the  diplomatic  correspondence  of  the  American  Govern- 
ment and  iu  the  minds  of  the  American  people;  and  of  keeping  plainly 

24  A— II 


iik^ 


370 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


and  steadily  in  view  the  questions  with  which  the  tribunal  has  aotualiy 
to  (leal,  and  the  facts  and  arguments  which  are  properly  and  directly 
relevant  to  those  »iuestions. 

Adhering  tinnly  to  this  distinction,  Iler  Majestj-'s  government  has, 
at  the  same  time,  not  declined  to  meet  and  argue,  within  the  limits  inc 
scribed  by  its  own  self-respect,  and  by  its  view  of  the  proper  scope  ot 
the  reference  to  arbitration,  the  wider  issues  which  the  United  States 
have  thought  i)roper  to  raise. 

Endeavors  were  made  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  to  show  that. 
in  ^'arious  matters  which  are  not  referred  to  the  arbitrators,  the  liritisii 
government  had  permitted  violations  of  its  neutrality  in  favor  of  the 
Confederate  States,  while  it  had  been  rigorous  in  refusing  to  the  United 
States  the  enjoyment  of  corresponding  advantages.  The  arbitrators 
were  asked  to  draw  from  hence  a  conclusion,  which  it  was  desired  they 
should  apply  to  the  questions  actually  submitted  to  them  for  adjudica- 
tion. 

These  complaiuts  related  substantially  to  the  traflQc  in  arms  and 
munitions  of  war,  and  other  articles  of  commerce,  carried  on  with 
southern  ports,  from  ports  within  the  British  dominions,  and  particu 
larly  from  and  through  that  of  Nassau.  The  United  States  insisted  also 
on  the  fact  that  the  confederate  government  had  agents  in  England 
for  the  purchase  of  what  it  required,  and  employed,  as  financial 
agents,  a  mercantile  house  in  this  country,  to  whom  they  remitted  spe 
cie  and  ootton,  and  through  whom  their  payments  were  made. 
[  125]  *But,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  it  has  been  clearly  proved  that 
all  these  complaints  are  groundless.  It  has  been  shown  that  the 
United  States,  equally  with  the  Confederate  States,  resorted  to  Eng 
land  for  necessary  supt)lies  of  arms  and  munitions  of  war,  and  that 
they  also  had  their  agents  here  for  making  purchases,  as  well  as  for 
their  tiuancial  transactions  and  for  the  disbursement  of  monej'.  It  has 
been  shown  that  the  traflic  carried  on  with  the  two  commurfties  (which, 
for  the  time,  they  were)  tlift'ered  solely  in  incidental  circumstances, 
which  were  the  natural  result  of  the  overwhelming  superiority  at  sea 
possessed  by  the  United  States,  and  which  imposed  no  peculiar  duties 
on  the  government  of  Great  Britain ;  that  in  all  these  matters  no  favor 
or  accommodation  was  accorded  to  one  which  was  denied  to  the  other; 
and  that  the  real  substance  of  the  comi)laints  of  the  United  States  is, 
that  Great  Britain  declined  to  as.sist  by  active  interference  the  more 
powerful  belligerent,  and  to  thwart  the  endeavors  of  the  weaker  to 
obtain  the  necessary  supplies,  and  that  she  from  first  to  last  persevered 
in  holding  an  even  hand  between  the  two.  It  short,  it  is  not  that  she 
departed  from  impartial  neutrality  in  favor  of  the  confederacy,  but  that 
she  refused  to  depart  from  it  in  the  interest  of  the  United  States.  It, 
therefore,  from  this  part  of  the  conduct  of  Her  Majesty's  government. 
a  presumption  is  to  be  applied  to  any  other  part,  the  legitimate  pre 
sumption  is,  not  that  the  government  would  be  discovered  to  deviate 
from  the  line  of  an  impartial  neutrality,  but  that  it  would  scrupulously 
an  1  steadily  adhere  to  that  line. 

Is,  then,  this  presumption  found  to  fail,  when  we  approach  the  <iues 
tions  which  are  really  before  the  arbitrators,  and  which  relate  oxdii 
sively  to  the  particular  vessels  enumerated  in  the  Case  of  the  United 
States?  Her  Majesty's  government  maintains  that  it  is  not.  In  tlic 
Case  which  it  has  presented,  and  in  this  Counter  Case,  the  British  govern 
nient  has  fully  stated  to  the  arbitrators  the  measures  adopted  to  pre 
vent  the  equipment  in  its  ports  of  belligerent  shii)S  of  war,  and  the  de 
parture  from  its  ports  of  vessels  specially  adapted  for  warlike  use  and 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


371 


r  ,  t 


111  buH  actually 
y  aiul  iliivctly 

A'cnuncnt  has, 
the  limits  pre 
n'oper  scope  of 
United  States 

s  to  show  that. 
>rs,  the  British 
u  favor  of  the 
;•  to  the  United 
?he  avbitratois 
iis  desired  they 
u  for  adjudica- 

c  in  arms  and 

arried  on  with 

s,  and  partieu 

es  in8i.sted  also 

its  in  England 

I,  as  financial 

Y  remitted  spe 

Its  were  made. 

rly  proved  that 

shown  that  the 

sorted  to  Eug 

war,  and  that 

as  well  as  for 

luouej'.    It  has 

nrfties  (which, 

circumstances. 

)eriority  at  sea 

peculiar  duties 

itters  no  favor 

d  to  the  other; 

lited  States  is, 

ence  the  more 

the  weaker  to 

ast  persevered 

s  not  that  she 

eracy,  but  that 

ed  States.    It', 

s  government. 

egitimate  pre 

red  to  deviate 

d  scrupulously 

oach  the  (pies 
1  relate  cxclii 
of  the  United 
s  not.  In  thf 
British  govern 
lopted  to  pre 
ir,  and  the  df 
arlike  use  and 


intended  for  the  naval  service  of  either  belligerent;  ex|>Iaining  at  the 
same  time  the  peculiar  difficulties  which,  in  a  country  like  (ireat  Britain, 
must  always  attend  the  enforcement  of  such  a  prohibition,  the  powers 
with  which  the  government  was  armed  by  law,  and  the  restraints  which 
the  law  imposed  on  it — restraints  Judged  expedient  in  England  for  the 
due  security  of  property  and  civil  liberty  and  for  the  proper  adminis- 
tration of  justice.  All  the  cases  of  alleged  or  suspected  equipment  or 
warlike  adaptation  which  occurred  during  the  war  have  been  stated  in 
order  to  the  arbitrators;  and  they  have  thus  beeu  enabled  to  take  a 
coiniected  view  of  the  manner  in  which  these  cases  were  dealt  with  by 
the  government,  and  the  general  course  which  it  followed  in  regard  to 
the.n. 

In  connection  with  this  part  of  the  subject  the  question  naturally 
arises,  what  mcnisure  of  care  or  diligence  can  reasonably  be  expected  in 
matters  of  this  kind  from  a  neutral  government — or,  to  speak  more  ex- 
actly, ought  to  be  held  due  from  such  a  government  as  a  matter  of  in- 
ternational obligation.    The  United  States  have  attempted  to  furnish  a 
definition  of  this,  which  to  the  British  government  appears  not  only  to 
fail  as  a  definition,  but  to  exact  more  than  neutral  powers  could  safely 
or  rightly  concede,  and  much  more  than  has  ever  been  practiced  by  the 
United  States  themselves.    In  illustration  of  this,  and  for  no  purpose 
of  recrimination  or  reproach,  it  has  been  found  necessary  to  refer  to  the 
past  and  recent  history  of  the  United  States,  not  only  as  being  the 
power  which  now  produces  this  verj'^  strict  definition  of  due  diligence, 
but  as  the  country  which  has  been  the  principal  seat  and  source  of  en- 
terprises, such  as  those  for  which  it  now  seeks  to  make  Great  Britain 
responsible.    It  has  been  necessary  to  exhibit  the  striking  contrast  be- 
tween the  course  of  the  American  Government  in  dealing  with  enter- 
prises against  friendly  states  within  its  territory  renewed  again  and 
again,  and  always  with  impunity,  during  a  long  series  of  years,  and  the 
iron  rigor  of  the  rules  it  now  seeks  to  enforce  against  Great  Britain,  the 
perfection  of  administrative  organization  it  seeks  to  exact  from  her. 
The  views  of  Her  Majesty's  government  as  to  what  constitutes  a  rea- 
sonable measure  of  diligence  or  care  have,  in  its  Case  and  Counter  Case, 
been  stated  in  general  t^rms.    But  this  government  has  refrained  from 
tl^p  attempt,  in  which  the  United  States,  as  it  conceives,  have  failed ; 
and  it  has  left  the  arbitrators  to  judge  of  the  facts  presented  to  them  bj' 
the  light  of  reason  and  justice,  aided  by  that  knowledge  of  the  general 
powers  and  duties  of  administrative  government  which  they  possess  as 
persons  long  conversant  with  public  attairs. 

Proceeding  to  the  several  cruisers  to  which  the  claims  of  the  United 
States  relate.  Her  Majesty's  government  has  been  compelled  to  observe, 
in  the  first  place,  that  an  award  against  Great  Britain  as  to  any  one  or 
more  of  them  could  not  be  supported  by  broad  general  allegations,  but 
must  be  founded  on  some  specific  failure  or  failures  of  duty  alleged  and 
proved  in  respect  of  that  ship  or  those  ships ;  in  the  second  place,  that, 
iu  deciding  whether  a  failure  of  duty  was  or  was  not  committed,  the 

arbitrators  have  to  consider,  not  what  has  since  beeu  discovered, 
ll'-Oj    or  what  the  members  of  the  tribunal  now  know  respecting  *these 

ships,  but  the  information  which  the  British  government  actually 
possessed,  or,  by  the  exercise  of  reasonable  care,  ought  to  have  pos- 
sessed, at  the  time.  They  have  to  place  themselves  in  the  situation  in 
which  this  government  then  was,  in  order  to  judge  fairly  whether  it 
iailed  in  the  performance  of  its  duties.  As  to  each  vessel,  the  original 
outfit  of  which  is  made  matter  of  complaint,  they  have  to  be  satisfied, 
ttrst,  that  she  was,  iu  fact,  armed,  fitted  out,  or  equipped  for  war  within 


872 


TREATY    OF    \VA8HIN(JTON. 


the  British  territory,  or  specially  adapted  within  it  to  warlike  use; 
seeoiidly,  that  the  (^Jiieen's  governmeut  had  reasonable  grounds  to  be- 
lieve that  she  was  intended  to  crnise  or  carry  on  war  against  the  United 
States ;  thirdly,  that,  having  such  reasonable  ground  of  belief,  the  gov 
ernnient  did  not  use  due  diligeuce  to  prevent  her  ecjuipinent,  or  else  to 
I»revent  her  departure.  It  is  not  enough  to  prove  one  of  these  things, 
or  two;  it  is  necessary  to  prove  all  three  of  them.  It  has  been  further 
pointed  out  that,  when  we  speak  of  a  government  having  reasonable 
grounds  of  belief,  (the  matter  in  question  being  the  prevention  of  an 
apprehended  act  by  the  enforcement  of  a  law,)  we  mean  that  it  has  more 
than  a  suspicion  founded  on  general  rumor  or  mere  probabilities ;  tliat 
it  has  reasons,  which  can  be  exposed  in  due  time  to  the  test  of  Judiciiil 
inquiry,  for  s^uch  a  belief  as  is  sutticient  to  justify  it  in  setting  the  ma- 
chinery of  the  law  in  motion. 

In  the  case  of  the  Alabama  it  has  never  been  denied  by  Great  Britain 
that  she  was  a  vessel  specially  adapted  by  her  construction  for  warlike 
use,  nor  that  she  was  thus  constructed  in  a  British  port.  Nor  is  it 
denied  that,  at  the  time  of  her  departure  from  England,  the  goveiii- 
nient  had  obtained  reasonable  ground  to  believe  that  she  was  intcnd'tl 
for  the  naval  service  of  the  Confederate  States.  But  it  has  been  shown 
that  this  necessary  information  was  not  put  into  the  possession  of  tie 
government  or  its  officers  by  the  minister  or  consul  of  the  United  States 
until  a  very  short  time  before  the  departure  of  the  ship,  either  throu<,^li 
a  want  of  due  diligence  on  their  part,  or  (which  is  more  probable)  Ik- 
cause  they  had  not,  ui>  to  that  time,  been  able  to  procure  it  themselves. 
It  has  been  shown,  also,  that  no  time  Avas  lost  by  the  government  :n 
consulting  its  legal  advisers  as  to  the  sufficiency  and  credibility  of  this 
evidence,  which  was  a  question  of  reasonable  doubt;  and  that  the  order 
for  detention  which,  in  the  event,  came  too  late,  was  deferred  only  till 
their  opinion  should  be  obtained.  It  has  been  shown  further  that  the 
information  possessed  by  the  government  related  solelj'  to  the  vessel 
herself,  which  was  known  to  be  unarmed,  though  atlapted  by  her  con- 
struction for  war.  Of  the  intended  dispatch  of  armf  for  her  nothin„' 
was  known  to  the  government;  nothing  was  known — certtiinly  nothing,' 
was  communicated — by  the  officials  of  the  United  States.  Her  3Iaj- 
esty's  government  submits  to  the  arbitrators  that,  on  the  facts  statf*! 
and  proved,  no  failure  of  duty  has  been  established  against  Great  Britain 
in  respect  of  which  compensation  ought  to  be  awarded  to  the  Unite! 
States. 

In  the  case  of  the  Florida  it  has  been  shown  that  the  British  gover*!- 
meat  had  not,  at  or  before  the  time  of  her  departure  from  England,  any 
reasonable  ground  to  believe  that  she  was  intended  to  cruise  or  canyo!) 
war  against  the  United  States,  and  that  no  information  on  M'hicli  :i 
reasonable  belief  could  be  founded  had,  up  to  that  time,  been  produced 
by  Mr.  Dudley  or  Mr.  Adams.  It  has  been  further  shown  that  she  Wii-* 
seized  at  the  Bahamas  by  the  authority  of  the  colonial  government ;  and. 
after  a  fair,  open,  and  regular  trial  in  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction, 
was  released  by  judicial  decree.  And  it  has  been  likewise  shown  thar 
the  cruise  in  w  hich  all  her  prizes  were  made  was  commenced  from  the 
confederate  port  of  Mobile,  in  which  port  she  was  manned  and  fitted  on: 
for  that  cruise.  Her  Majesty's  government  submits  therefore  that,  :a 
respect  of  this  ship,  no  failure  of  duty  has  been  establisheci  agains* 
Great  Britain  on  account  of  which  compensation  ought  to  be  awarded 
to  the  United  States. 

In  the  cases  of  the  Georgia  and  Shenandoah,  it  has  been  shown  tha* 
neither  vessel  was  armed,  fitted  out,  or  e(iuipped  for  war,  or  specially 


ssiou  of  tho 


ish  {jovoi:!- 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    GKEAT    BRITAIN. 


373 


a(lai)te(l,  either  wholly  or  in  i»art,  for  warlike  use  within  British  terri- 
tory ;  and,  further,  that  Her  Maje.st.v'.s  pfovernnient  had  not,  at  the  time 
when  they  respectively  left  Kngiand,  any  reasonable  jjronnd  to  believe 
that  tliey,  or  either  of  them,  were  or  was  intended  to  cruise  or  carry  on 
war  afiainst  the  United  States.  Efforts  have,  it  is  true,  been  nia<le  to 
show  that  the  Shenan(h)ah  was  enable<l  to  ship  a  considerable  addition 
to  her  crew  at  Melbourne,  by  the  connivance  or  culpable  ne;;li<;;ence  of 
the  colonial  authorities;  but  this  charge,  which  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  original  outtit  of  the  ship,  and  is  one  which  from  its  nature  wotdd 
require  to  be  supjmrted  by  the  clearest  evidence,  is  not  so  substantiated, 
mid  is,  on  the  contrary,  disjyroved  by  the  facts.  No  failure  of  duty  has 
been  established  against  Her  Majesty's  government  in  respect  of  either 
(if  these  vessels. 

In  the  case  of  the  Tallahassee  amd  Ciiickamauga,  it  has  been  seeu 
that  no  failure  of  duty  has  been  even  alleged,  much  less  i»roved,  against 
Great  Britain.  These  vessels  were  built,  indeed,  in  England,  but 
jL*7]  they  were  built  and  used  as  ships  of  commerce;  it  was  by  *aii 
after-thought  that  they  wore  armed  for  war ;  and  their  employ- 
ment as  ships  of  war  lasted  but  a  few  weeks  in  the  one  case,  and  but  a 
few  days  in  the  other.  They  were  armed  in,  and  dispatched  from,  a 
confederate  port,  and  to  the  same  confederate  jwrt  they  returned. 

The  Sumter  ami  Nashville  were  not  even  built  in  the  Queen's  domin- 
ions, and  in  respect  of  their  original  outfit,  nothing  is  or  can  be  alleged 
ajjainst  Her  Majesty's  government.  Setting  aside  some  other  minor 
complaints,  which  will  tiot  bear  a  mon)ent's  examination,  it  is  suggested 
only  that  they  received  in  British  ports  such  hospitalities  as  were  ex- 
tended to  confederate  vessels  in  general  in  the  ports  of  neutral  nations. 

In  the  case  of  the  Ketributiou,  the  facts  alleged  show  nothing  more 
than  that  her  commander  contrived  on  one  occasion,  by  fraudulently 
liersonatiug  the  master  of  a  prize  captured  by  him,  and  concealing  the 
fact  that  she  was  a  prize,  to  dispose  of  the  cargo  in  a  small  island  of 
the  Bahama  archipelago,  remote  froui  the  seat  of  government ;  and 
that,  on  another  occasion,  by  means  of  a  fraudulent  conspiracy  with  a 
party  of  "  wreckers,''  he  managed  to  carry  a  prize  into  the  same  place 
and  to  extort,  through  the  wreckers,  from  her  master  and  owners,  a  ran- 
som, under  pretense  of  salvage.  These  facts,  if  proved,  establish  no 
failure  of  duty  against  Great  Britain. 

Her  Majesty's  government  deems  itself  entitled  to  observe  that  the 
later  cases  in  this  list  throw  a  strong  light  upon  the  earlier  ones.  Thej 
show  very  clearly  what  are  the  views  of  international  obligation  and. 
international  justice  on  which  the  claims  of  the  United  States  are 
founded.  If  Great  Britain  is  liable  for  the  captures  of  the  Tallahassee 
and  Chickamauga,  wh.at  necessity  is  there  for  endeavoring  to  show  that, 
iu  those  of  the  Florida  and  Alabama,  the  British  government  had  rea- 
sonable ground  to  believe,  or  even  to  suspect,  the  existence  of  an  unlaw- 
ful intention  ?  If  she  is  liable  in  those  of  the  Sumter  and  Nashville,  it 
is  superfluous  to  prove  even  equipment  or  construction  iu  British  terri- 
tory. If  she  is  liable  for  the  Retribution,  what  need,  it  may  be  asked, 
of  any  definite  charge,  of  any  proof  or  evidence  at  all  ? 

It  Bouat  not  be  forgotten  that,  besides  the  various  cruisers  in  respect 
of  which  claims  are  now  made  by  the  United  States  Government  against 
Great  Britain,  there  were  at  least  ten  others  which  were  fitted  out  and 
sent  to  sea  from  confederate  ports  iu  the  course  of  the  war,  (the  Cal- 
houn, Jeflferson  Dans,  Savannah,  Echo,  Saint  Nicholas,  Winslow,  York, 
McRae,  Judah,  and  Petrel ;)  and  that  by  at  least  eight  of  these  depre- 
<lation8  were  committed  upon  the  merchant  shipping  of  the  United 


fnpr 


r-  ) 


'•.'rfr 


*H'*j 


I 


374 


TREATY    or    WA8HIN(JT0N. 


I 


States.'  Tliere  were  also  tlie  Boston  and  the  Sallie,  which  are  iiu'liulcd 
(without  any  aiiparent  reason)  in  the  suiniuary  of  claims  contained  in 
volume  vii  of  the  Appendix  to  the  Case  of  the  United  States,  but  ot 
which,  in  the  case  itself,  no  mention  is  made. 

It  will  not  have  escaped  the  notice  of  the  arbitrators  that  the  cases  oi 
the  Florida  and  Alabama  occurred  at  a  very  early  period  of  the  war. 
That  of  the  Florida  occurred  in  the  first  year  of  it;  that  of  the  Alabama 
very  soon  afterward,  and  before  the  true  character  of  the  Florida,  or  tlic 
purpose  for  which  she  was  destined,  was  or  could  be  known  in  England. 
In  dealing  with  a  charge  of  negligence  brought  by  one  nation  against 
another,  this  is  a  material  fact.  A  government  which  finds  itself  com- 
pelled, by  the  outbreak  of  civil  war  in  another  country,  to  assume  tlio 
character  of  a  neutral,  must  learn,  by  practical  experience,  the  necessity 
for  various  measures  of  precaution  which  were  never  called  for  before. 
The  United  States,  therefore,  tind  it  necessary  to  allege  more  than  this, 
and  to  charge  the  British  government  with  a  want  of  promptitude  and 
activity  continued  after  circumstances  had  proved  this  need  of  unusnid 
l)recautions.  And,  in  connection  with  this  charge,  and  as  a  proof  of  it, 
they  have  dwelt  on  the  fact  that  no  alteration  was  made,  during  tli.' 
war,  in  the  laws  of  Great  Britain,  although  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  is  alleged  to  have  asked  that  these  laws  might  be  made 
more  effective. 

Her  Majesty's  government  has  to  observe  upon  this  point  that  the 
United  States  have  failed,  or  forborne,  to  i)oint  out  wherein  the  law  ot 
Great  Britain  required  alteration,  and  this  for  a  very  plain  reason. 

The  law  of  Great  Britain  on  this  subject  was  stricter  and  more  com- 
prehensive in  some  of  its  prohibitions,  and  more  severe  in  some  of  its 
penalties,  than  the  corresponding  law  of  the  United  States;  and,  except 
in  those  points  in  which  the  British  law  was  of  superior  efficiency,  botii 
were  substantially  the  same.  The  first  suggestion  of  any  alteration  of 
the  law  proceeded,  not  from  ^fr.  Adams,  (who,  in  the  case  of  the  Ala- 
bama, had  stated,  on  the  Oth  October,  18(52,  that  he  based  his 
[128]  representations  "  upon  evidence  which  applied  directly  *to  in 
fringements  of  the  municipal  law  itself,  and  not  to  anything 
bej'ond  it,")^  but  from  Earl  Kussell,  who,  on  the  l!>th  December,  ISOL', 
wrote  thus  to  Mr.  Adams: 

1  have  the  honor  to  hiforui  yoii  that  Her  Jlajesty's  jj;<>veiniueiit,  after  consnltatidii 
witl)  the  law-otiicers  of  the  Crown,  arc  of  opinion  that  certain  amendments  niijjlit  be 
introduced  into  the  foreign-enlistment  act,  which,  if  sanctioned  by  Parliament,  would 
have  the  ert'ect  of  giving  greater  power  to  the  executive  to  prevent  the  construction, 
iu  British  ports,  of  ships  destined  for  the  use  of  belligerents.  But  Her  Majesty's  gov- 
ernment consider  that,  before  submitting  any  proposals  of  that  sort  to  Parliament,  it 
would  be  desirable  that  they  shouhl  previously  commnuicate  with  the  Governmeut  of 
the  United  States,  and  ascertain  whether  that  Government  is  willing  to  make  similar 
alterations  in  its  own  foreign-enlistment  act,  and  that  the  amendments,  like  the  orig- 
inal statute,  should,  as  it  were,  proceed  jmii  pnasu  in  both  countries.  I  shall  accord- 
ingly be  ready  to  confer  at  any  time  with  yon,  and  to  listen  to  any  suggestions  which 
yon  may  havfe  to  make,  by  which  the  British  foreign-enlistment  act  and  the  corre- 
BlH>nding  statute  of  the  United  States  may  be  made  more  elficient  for  their  purpose.' 

This  communication  was  courteously  received  by  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  which  professed  themselves  to  be  willing  to  consider 
any  propositions  which  the  British  government  might  desire  to  make; 
but  they  offered  no  suggestion  on  their  own  part.  On  the  contrary,  Mr. 
Adams  distinctly  stated  to  Earl  Russell,  on  the  14th  February,  1863, 

•  See  the  general  list  of  claims  filed  iu  the  Department  of  State  of  the  United  States, 
Appendix  to  Ca«e  of  the  United  States,  vol.  iv,  p.  446,  et  aeq. 

2  Appendix  to  Case  of  United  States,  vol.  iii,  p.  51. 
aibid.,  p.  92. 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    CJREAT   BRITAIN. 


375 


e  United  States, 


that  they  did  not  see  how  their  own  law  on  this  subject  eoiilil  l)e  im- 
proved;" (or,  as  jMr.  Adams  reported  the  same  conversation  to  his  own 
(lovernment,  that  "the  hiw  of  the  United  States  was  considered  as  ot' 
very  sufficient  vigor.'")'  Earl  Kussell  then  rejoined,  that  the  adminis- 
tration of  which  he  was  a  member  had,  on  more  niatun^  consideration, 
come  to  a  similar  conclusion ;  and  "  that  no  further  proceedings  ueetl 
be  taken  at  present  on  the  subject." 

On  a  later  date  (27th  March,  18G3,)  Lord  Russell  told  Lord  Lyons  that 
tbe  subject  had  again  been  mentioned  : 

With  respect  to  tho  law  it8«'lf,  Mr.  Aclanis  said,  citlier  It  was  Nuftkifiit  for  \m  pur- 
pose of  neutrality,  and  then  lot  the  British  goverinnent  enforce  it,  or  it  wan  iiiHntlicient, 
»ti(l  then  let  the  British  government  apply  to  Parliament  to  amend  it.  I  said  tiiat  the 
iiibinet  were  of  opinion  that  the  law  was  suflicient ;  but  that  legal  evidence  could  not 
always  be  procnred.- 

On  another  occasion  Lord  Russell  gave  ^Fr.  Adams  an  answer  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  Mr.  .J.  Q.  Adams,  as  Secretary  of  State,  had  re- 
turned to  a  similar  suggestion  made  by  the  minister  of  Portugal :  "The 
Alabama  has  avoided  seizure  through  the  iiifidequacy  of  the  evidence, 
not  through  a  defect  in  the  law." 

The  correspondence  between  tbe  two  governments  prior  to  the  ter- 
iiiiuatiou  of  the  war  does  not  justify  the  statement  made  at  page  113  of 
tbe  Case  of  the  United  States,  that  "  the  United  States  repeatedly,  and 
in  vain,  invited  Her  JMajesty's  government  to  amend  tbe  British  foreign- 
enlistment  act."  The  only  foundation  for  that  statement  appears  .o  bo 
that  Mr.  Adams,  in  a  letter  to  Earl  Russell  of  the  20th  May,  1805,  spoke 
i)i'  "  the  inefliciencj' of  the  law  "on  which  the  British  government  relied ; 
and  of  "  their  absolute  refusal,  when  solicited,  to  procure  additional 
])owers  to  attain  the  object."^  Nor  was  it  until  the  18th  September, 
1SG5,  (when  the  war  was  over,)  that  Mr.  Adams  suggested  to  Earl  Rus- 
sell that  there  were  certain  of  the  "  main  provisions  "  of  the  law  of  the 
United  States  on  bis  subject,  viz,  "  those  very  same  sections  which 
were  originally  enacted  in  isiT,  as  a  temporary  law,  on  the  complaint 
of  the  Portuguese  minister,  and  made  permanent  in  that  of  1S18,"  which 
were  not  found  in  the  law  of  Great  Britain  ;  adding,  "  It  is  in  these 
very  .sections  that  our  experience  has  shown  us  to  reside  the  best  pre- 
ventive force  in  the  whole  law."*  To  this  suggestion  a  very  conclusive 
reply  was  made  by  Earl  Ru8.sell  on  the  3d  November,  1805,  (the  accu- 
racy of  which  has  since  been  admitted  even  by  American  writers  most 
strenuous  in  their  advocacy  of  the  claims  against  Crreat  Britain,)  viz, 
that  the  .sections  of  the  American  acts  of  1817  and  1818  referred  to  by 
Mr.  Adams,  which  are  commonly  known  as  the  "bonding  clauses," 
"proved  utterly  inefficacious  to  prevent  the  fitting  out  of  privateers  at 
Baltimore,"  and  were  also  so  strictly  limited  to  "  armed "  vessels,  or 
vessels  carrying  a  cargo  "consisting  principally  of  arms  and  munitions 
of  war,"  as  to  be  wholly  inapplicable  (even  if  they  had  been  in  force  in 
Great  Britain)  to  the  Alabama,  Florida,  Georgia,  Shenandoah,  and  ves- 
sels of  that  class.' 

Under  these  circumstances  no  alteration  was  attempted  to  be  made 
in  tbe  law  of  Great  Britain  on  this  subject  during  the  war,  when  it 
might  have  been  attended  with  serious  difficulties,  and  might 
[129J   have  been  objected  to  as  inconsistent  with  neutrality.    Her  ♦Ma- 
jesty's government  believed  that  the  existing  law  would  be 


'  Appendix  to  Cass  of  Uniteo  States,  vol.  1,  p.  6C8. 
"Ibid.,  p.  670. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,p.  533. 
<Ibid.,  p.  572. 
filbid..  p.  587. 


4 


i 


376 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


C:   \ 


found  sufficient  in  all  cases  in  wliicli  evidence  of  its  int'rinfjenient  might 
be  forthcoming,  to  stop  those  enterprises,  of  which  the  United  States 
had  a  right  to  complain ;  and  the  result  was  not  such  as  to  disappoint 
its  expectations. 

After  the  close  of  the  war,  Lord  Clarendon,  in  a  dispatch  to  Sir  F. 
Bruce,  December  20,  1805,  made  a  new  overture  to  Mr.  Adams  for  tlic 
adoption,  concurrently  by  both  nations,  of  measures  calculated  to  bring 
about  such  improvements  in  the  code  of  international  law,  as  exi)eri 
ence  might  have  shown  to  be  necessary.  "Mr.  Adams,"  he  reports,  "in 
reply  said,  that  the  law  of  England,  in  its  international  application, 
stood  greatlj'  in  need  of  amendment,  but  he  gave  me  no  encourage 
meut  to  expect  that  his (Tovernment  would  cooperate  with  that  of  Jlei 
Majesty  in  the  course  of  proceeding  which  I  had  suggested."' 
'Afterward,  in  1807,  a  royal  commission  was  appointed  by  the  British 
government  to  consider  whether  it  was  expedient  to  make  any  and  what 
amendments  in  the  neutrality  laws  of  Great  Britain  ;  and  the  result  ot 
their  labors  was  an  act  of  Parliament,  passed  in  1870,  by  which  the 
British  government  has  been  armed  with  much  more  stringent  powers 
of  control  than  it  before  possessed,  over  all  trading  or  other  operations 
of  its  citizens  engaged  in  ship-building,  which  might  have  a  tendency  to 
compromise  its  neutrality  or  to  disturb  its  friendly  relations  with  bel- 
ligerent powers.  Ko  similar  powers  are  vested  in  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  by  the  act  of  Congress  of  1818.  Yet,  as  to  this 
British  statute,  the  United  States  have  suggested  (at  page  118  of  their 
Case)  that  its  provisions  "  were  intended,  at  least  as  against  the  British 
government,  as  a  re  enactment  of  the  law  of  nations,  as  understood  by 
the  United  States  to  be  applicable  to  the  cases  of  the  Alabama  and 
other  ships  of  war  constructed  in  England  for  the  use  of  the  insur- 
gents." 

It  might  have  been  expected,  if  this  were  the  view  taken  by  the 
United  States  of  the  recent  British  legislation  of  1870,  that  something 
would  have  been  done,  or  at  least  attempted,  by  the  legislature  of  the 
United  States,  to  bring  their  own  neutrality  laws  to  an  equal  degree  of 
efficiency.  So  far  from  this,  it  will  be  found  that  their  law  of  1817-18 
was  designedly,  and  not  through  any  mere  inadvertence,  restricted 
within  its  present  limits ;  and  that  the  only  proposal  for  a  change  in 
that  law  which  has  yet  been  made  to  Congress,  since  the  termination  of 
the  civil  war,  was  in  a  precisely  opposite  direction. 

A  comparison  of  the  i)rovision8  of  the  existing  neutrality  law  of  the 
United  States  with  the  British  law  which  was  in  force  during  the  whole 
of  the  late  contest,  (derived  entirely  from  an  American  source,  beyond 
suspicion  of  partiality,)  will  be  found,  with  some  other  particulars, 
bearing  on  this  immediate  subject,  in  annex  (B)  to  the  present  Counter 
Oase. 

But  it  must  be  observed  further,  that  a  state  is  under  no  obligation 
to  make  changes  in  its  laws  at  the  instance  of  another  state.  All  that 
it  has  to  do  is  to  take  care  that  its  international  obligations  are  tul- 
filled.  Were  not  the  international  obligations  of  Great  Britain  fulfilled 
from  1802  to  1805  !  The  arbitrators  have  had  ample  proof  that  they 
were  so.  Ship  after  ship  was  seized  and  detained — at  what  cost  in 
some  cases,  and  under  what  circumstances  of  difficulty,  they  have 
already  seen.  No  armed  vessel  at  any  time  sailed  from  a  British  port 
for  the  service  of  the  confederates.  From  July,  1802,  to  the  end  of  the 
war,  not  a  single  vessel  equipped  or  specially  adapted  by  construction 

'  Appendix  to  the  Case  of  the  United  States,  vol.  iii,  p.  637. 


COUNTER    CASE    OP    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


377 


e  reports,  "  in 


or  otherwise  for  war  was  able  to  leave  any  British  port  for  tbe  confed- 
erate service;  and  not  a  single  vessel,  of  wbich  tbe  government  bad 
any  information,  sailed,  even  without  warlike  equipment  or  adaptation, 
with  the  intention  that  she  should  be  em^^loyed  in  that  service.  In  tbe 
documents  produced  by  tbe  United  States  there  are  repeated  state- 
ments to  tbe  effect  that  many  formidable  vessels  had  l)een  contracted 
for  by  tbe  agents  of  tbe  Confederate  States  in  England,  ^f  hat  became 
of  these  contracts  ?  They  appear  to  bave  been  abandoned,  and  the  con- 
federate government  had  recourse  to  France,  whence,  though  foded  in 
some  other  instances,  they  obtained  tbe  iron-clad  Stonewall.' 

This  charge  therefore  vanishes,  and  the  decision  of  tbe  British 
[130]    government  not  to  *propose  any  alteration  of  its  laws  to  Parlia- 
ment while  a  war  was  in  progress,  but  to  reserve  the  whole  ques- 
tion for  later  and  more  deliberate  consideration,  can  certainly  afford  iio 
cause  of  complaint  to  the  United  States. 

There  is,  however,  another  class  of  cnarges,  «piite  distinct  from  those 
reviewed  above,  by  accumulating  wbich  it  is  Jii)i»arently  sowght,  in  the 
Case  of  the  United  States,  to  make  good  the  deficiencies  of  tiie  latter. 
Tliese  relate  to  tbe  hospitalities  afforded  in  ports  of  the  British  empire 
to  confederate  cruisers,  and  to  the  undue  favor  or  partiality  which  is 
alleged  to  bave  been  shown  to  them  by  the  local  authorities.  The 
arbitrators  know  what  is  the  general  character  of  these  coniplaints. 
That  a  vessel  of  war  may  have  contrived  to  ship  a  few  more  tons  of 
coal  or  a  few  more  casks  of  beef  or  biscuit,  or  to  stay  in  i>ort  a  day  or 
two  longer  than  strict  necessity  required ;  that  precautions  which 
ought  to  be  needless  in  dealing  vith  naval  oilHcers  (who  are  men  of 
honor)  may  sometimes  bave  been  omitted  or  not  suspiciously  enforced, 
that  any  civility,  of  tbe  most  trivial  and  ordinary  kind,  wns  extended 
to  the  commander  of  a  confederate  vessel — these  are  t'>e  grievances  on 
which  tbe  United  States  ask  a  tribunal  of  arbitration  lo  j)ass  .judgment, 
and  on  which  they  rely  as  assisting  their  claim  for  compensation  against 
Great  Britain. 

It  is  evident  that,  if  all  these  complaints  could  be  proved,  they  would 
not  support  a  demand  for  compensation ;  nor  are  they  really  within  f he 
scope  of  the  reference  to  arbitration. 

The  restrictions  which  were  imposed  by  tbe  Q'leen's  regulations  on 
belligerent  vessels,  entering  ports  within  her  dominions,  were  not  re- 
quired by  international  law.  They  were  made,  and  they  might  bave 
been  revoked,  in  tbe  exercise  of  those  discretionary  powers  which  are 
vested  in  all  sovereign  governments.  All  that  Great  Britain  owed  the 
United  States  on  this  score  was,  that  they  should  be  enforced, 
tairly  and  impartially,  on  both  belligerents  alike.  In  the  section  of  this 
Counter  Case  which  has  been  devoted  to  that  subject  all  these  com- 
plaints have  been  reviewed  and  answered,  in  a  manner  which  Her  Ma 
jesty's  government  would  fain  hope  will  i>rove  convincing,  not  only  to 

'The  arbitrators  are  referred  to  Sinclair's  letter,  (24th  September,  IHfiU,)  quoted  iu 
the  Case  of  Great  Britaiu,  p.  45: 

"When  I  made  a  contract  with  yon  in  November  last  for  the  building  of  a  stenm- 
sliip,  I  was  under  the  impression,  having  taken  legal  advice,  that  there  was  nothing 
ill  the  hiw  of  England  that  would  prevent  a  British  snbjec*  from  hnihling  such  a 
vessel  for  any  foreign  subject  as  a  commercial  transaction.  Although  the  recent  dc- 
ciHion  in  the  court  of  exchequer  in  the  case  of  the  Alexandra  would  seem  to  sustain 
the  opinion,  yet  the  evident  determination  of  your  government  to  yield  to  the  pressure 
of  the  United  States  minister,  and  prevent  the  sailing  of  any  vessel  that  may  be  sus- 
pected of  l)eing  the  property  of  a  citizen  of  the  Confederate  States,  is  made  so  manifest 
that  I  have  concluded  it  will  be  better  for  me  to  endeavor  to  close  the  contract  re^iM-red 
to,  and  go  where  I  can  have  more  liberal  action." 


'f! 


378 


TREATY   OF    WASHINGTON. 


the  arbitrators,  but  to  the  United  States.  It  would,  indeed,  be  no 
matter  of  surprise,  and  would  aft'ord  no  great  occasion  for  censure,  if  it 
should  be  found  that,  among  the  widely  scattered  colonial  possessions 
of  the  British  Empire,  some  errors  of  judgment  had  been  committed, 
and  that  diflficulties  new  to  the  local  authorities,  and  often  very  em- 
barrassing, had  not  always  been  satisfactorily  met.  But  it  must  surely 
be  plain  to  5very  one  who  reads  this  recital  that  the  governors  of  the 
various  British  colonies  executed  the  regulations  to  the  best  of  their 
judgment  and  ability,  and  with  thorough  impartiality  as  between  the 
two  belligerents.  It  is  diflScult,  indeed,  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that 
these  complaints  spring  from  imperfect  information.  When,  for  ex- 
ample, it  is  asserted  that  the  cruisers  of  the  United  States  were  virtu- 
ally excluded  from  the  chief  port  of  the  Bahama  Islands,  in  favor  of 
confederate  cruisers,  and  we  discover  that  these  islands  were  thirty- 
four  times  visited  by  the  former,  while  Nassau  was  but  twice  visited 
by  the  latter ;  or,  when  the  quantity  of  coal  obtained  by  confederate 
ships  is  made  a  matter  of  complaint,  and  we  find  that  a  single  United 
States  vessel,  within  six  weeks,  contrived  to  procure  from  three  British 
ports  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  amount  ascertained  to  have  been 
l)urchased  within  Her  Majesty's  dominions  by  all  the  confederate  ships 
together  during  the  whole  course  of  the  war,  Ciin  we  doubt  that  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  is  laboring  under  fierious  misappre- 
hensions? 

The  British  colonies  were,  it  is  true,  often  resorted  to  by  belligerent 
vessels  of  war ;  bnt  their  most  frequent  visitors  were  cruisers  of  the 
United  States;  and,  if  infractions  of  Her  Majesty's  regulations  were 
sometimes  committed,  these  cruisers  were  the  most  frequent  oft'enders. 


C03IPENSATI0N   CLAIMED    BY   THE   UNITED    STATES. 

CIPLES. 


-GENERAL   PRIN- 


'¥^  \ 


The  British  government  then,  on  this  summary  review  c^  the  facts 
and  aT-guments  adduced  by  the  United  States,  submits  to  the  arbitrators 
that  no  failure  of  duty  has  been  established  against  Great  Britain  iu 
respect  of  any  of  the  vessels  enumerated  in  the  case.  But,  since  the 
arbitrators  are  to  judge,  and,  as  it  is  necessary  for  every  party  to  an 
arbitration  to  contemplate  the  possibility  that  on  some  points  the  award 
may  not  be  in  his  favor,  something  ought  bore  to  be  said  on  the  claims 
for  compensation  urged  by  the  United  States,  and  on  the  proper  mode 
of  dealing  with  such  claims. 

Her  Majesty's  government  readily  admits  the  general  principle 
that,  where  an  injury  has  been  done  by  one  nation  to  another,  a 
claim  for  some  appropriate  redress  arises,  and  that  it  is  on  all  ac- 
counts desirable  that  this  right  should  be  satisfied  by  amicable  rep- 
aration, instead  of  being  enforced  by  war.  All  civil  society  re- 
X)08es  on  this  principle,  or  on  a  principle  analogous  to  this ;  the 
society  of  nations,  as  well  as  that  which  unites  the  individual 
[131]  *memberf?  of  each  particular  commonwealth.  But  the  general 
principle  cirries  us  but  a  little  way.  Before  it  can  be  applied  in 
practice  various  considerations  interpose  themselves,  which  are  as  nec- 
compen-ation  cssary  to  guard  against  injustice  in  one  direction,  as  the 
umte"su.u.'  "*"  principle  itself  is  to  prevent  or  remedy  it  in  another.  It 
General  principle,  jg  jj^j.  necossary  to  enumetato   all   these  considerations. 

Here  it  is  enough  to  say  that  the  reparation  claimed  should  never  ex- 
ceed the  amount  of  the  loss  which  can  be  clearly  shown  to  have 
been  actually  caused  by  the  alleged  injury ;  and  that  it  should  bear  some 


COUNTER   CASE   OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


379 


aAL   PRIN- 


reasonable  proportion,  uot  only  to  the  loss  consequent  on  the  tict  or 
omission,  but  to  the  gravity  of  the  act  or  omission  itself.  A  slight  de- 
fault may  have  in  some  way  contributed  to  a  very  great  injury ;  but  it 
is  by  no  means  true  that,  in  such  a  case,  the  greatness  of  the  loss  is  to 
be  regarded  as  furnishing  the  just  measure  of  reparation,  without  regard 
to  the  venial  character  of  the  default  It  is  needless  to  show  this  by 
examples.  Many  illustratious  of  it  will  suggest  themselves  to  the  minds 
of  the  arbitrators. 

There  may  be  cases,  doubtless,  in  which  considerations  of  this  kind 
do  not  demand  to  be  taken  into  account.  But  it  is  manifest  that  they 
apply  very  forcibly  to  defaults  such  as  are  charged,  and  claims  such  as 
are  made,  by  the  United  States  against  Great  Britain.  The  substance 
of  the  charge  in  this  class  of  cases  is,  that  a  belligerent  has  been  enabled 
to  make  use  of  some  spot  within  the  neutral  territory  for  iiurposes  of 
war,  through  a  relaxation  of  the  care  which  the  neutral  government 
ought  to  have  exerted  to  prevent  it.  It  is  not  true  that  the  default  of 
the  neutral  is  the  cause  of  the  losses  sustained.  It  is  certainly  not  the 
causa  cmtsans  ;  it  need  uot  even  be  the  cama  sine  qua  non.  The  most 
that  can  be  alleged  is  that,  if  greater  diligence  had  been  used,  those 
losses  might  perhaps  have  been  prevented,  and,  at  all  events,  would 
not  have  happened  by  the  same  means  and  in  the  same  way.  The 
losses  complained  of  are  losses  inflicted  by  the  ordinary  and  legitimate 
operations  of  war,  which  are  allej'ed  to  have  been  facilitated  by  the 
neglect  of  the  neutral.  But  the  active  and  direct  agent  in  the  infliction 
of  loss  is  tlie  belligerent,  and  he  inflicts  it  in  ways  which,  as  between 
him  .and  his  enemy,  are  lawful ;  tl  e  only  share  in  it  which  can  be 
ascribed  to  the  neutral  is  indirect  and  passive,  and  consists  in  an  udIu- 
tentioual  omission.  Further,  if  we  attemi)t  to  pursue  this  share  of 
liability,  springing  from  neglect  alone,  through  the  operations,  naval  or 
military,  to  which  the  neglect  is  alleged  to  have  contributed — through 
successive  battles,  through  a  cruise  or  a  campaign — we  see  that  it  es- 
capes from  any  i)recise  estimate,  and  soon  loses  itself  among  the  mul- 
titude of  causes,  positive  or  negative,  direct  or  indirect,  distinct  or  ob- 
scure, which  combine  to  give  success  to  one  belligerent  or  the  other,  and 
to  which  the  proverbial  uncertainty  of  war  is  due.  This  is  clearly  seen 
when  the  principle  is  applied  to  the  case  of  a  ship  which  has  been  armed 
or  adapted  for  war,  or  has  had  her  warlike  force  augmented,  in  neutral 
territory.  We  speak,  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  of  the  "acts"  of  a  shi]), 
of  prizes  made  or  losses  inflicted  by  her,  as  if  the  i>ower  and  responsi- 
bility of  doing  hurt  adhered  to  the  vessel  herself.  But  the  acts  of  a 
ship  are  the  acts  of  the  persons  \* ho  have  possession  and  control  of  her; 
the  ship  herself — which  is  only  a  vehicle  of  wood  or  iron,  serving,  if 
armed,  the  purpose  of  a  floating  fortress — is  but  the  instrument,  or 
rather  one  of  the  instruments,  with  which  tl'ose  acts  are  done. 

The  same  thing  is  seen  more  clearly  still  when  we  come  to  apply  the 
principle  to  cases  where  the  equipment  or  adaptation  is  manifest  but 
partial.  A  danger  here  arises  of  being  misled  by  a  false  itnalogy.  Any 
equipment,  however  partial,  in  a  neutral  port,  such  as  the  shipping  of  a 
gun,  the  cutting  of  a  port-hole,  the  addition  of  a  magazine  or  shell-room 
to  the  internal  fittings  of  a  ship,  might  justify  the  neutral  power  in 
restoriog  all  prizes  made  by  her  during  the  cruise  to  which  the  partial 
equipment  was  applied,  and  afterward  brought  within  the  neutral  terri- 
tory. The  ground  on  which  the  restitution  is  decreed  here  is,  that  there 
has  been  a  violation  of  the  neutrality  of  the  territory ;  and  t  mattery 
riot  whether  that  violation  were  great  or  small.  But  if,  in  such  a  case, 
it  be  possible  to  show  that  the  partial  equipment  had  been  made  through 


m 


380 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


'   1 


m 


neglect  ou  the  part  of  the  authorities  of  the  port,  and  if  reparation  for  the 
neglect  be  demanded,  how  are  we  to  assess  the  liability  of  the  neutral ! 
To  assign  the  whole  damage  which  the  ship  may  do  during  her  cruise  to 
the  neglect  of  the  neutral,  would  be  extravagantly  unjust;  to  allot  with 
precision  any  specitic  proportion  of  it  to  the  same  cause,  would  almost 
certainly  be  impracticable. 

Further,  when  the  neutral  country  from  which  a  ship  of  war,  or  an 
equipment,  or  an  augmentation  of  force  has  been  obtained,  is  only  one 
of  several  countries  to  which  the  belligerent  has  access  for  similar  pur- 
poses, it  is  impossible  to  assume  that  the  consequence  of  the  preven- 
tion of  a  particular  adventure  of  this  kind  would  have  been  to  deprive 
that  belligerent  of  the  means  of  accomplishing  his  purpose;  its  only 
ettect  might  have  been  to  change  the  immediate  direction  of  his  endeav- 
ors. Thus,  in  the  case  of  the  rams  at  Birkenhead,  the  responsibility 
arising  out  of  the  contract  between  the  builders  and  Bullock  was  sought 
to  be  got  rid  of,  by  a  transfer  of  the  benefit  of  that  contract  to  a 
[132]  *Frenchman  named  Bravay,  who  pretended  that  his  object  was 
to  dis[)ose  of  them  to  other  powers,  and  not  to  the  Confederate 
States;  and  when  the  confederate  agents  found  it  impracticable  to 
obtain  those  vessels  from  a  British  port,  they  succeeded  in  procuring 
and  carrying  to  sea  another  similar  ram,  the  Stonewall,  from  a  port  in 
France. 

When  any  vessels,  whether  procured  from  (Ireat  Britain  or  otherwise 
obtained,  had  become  confederate  ships  of  war,  the  duty  of  repelling 
their  hostile  proceediugs  by  all  proper  and  efticient  means  (like  the  rest 
of  the  oi)erations  necessary  for  the  conduct  of  the  war)  devolved  exclu- 
sively upon  the  United  States,  and  not  upon  the  British  government 
Over  the  measure  taken  by  the  United  States  for  that  purpose  Great 
Britain  could  exercise  no  intlucuce  or  control ;  nor  can  she  be  held  respon- 
sible, in  any  degree,  for  their  delay,  their  neglect,  or  their  insufficieucy. 
Any  want  of  skill  or  success,  even  in  the  operations  by  land,  would  have 
the  eft'ect  of  prolonging  the  period  during  which  cruisers  of  this  nature 
could  be  continued.  All  losses,  which  might  have  been  prevented  by 
the  use  of  more  skillful  or  more  energetic  means,  ought  justly  to  be 
ascribed  to  a  want  of  due  diligence  on  the  part  of  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  and  not  to  any  error,  at  an  earlier  stage,  of  the  British 
government.     Causa  proxima,  non  remota  spectatur. 

In  short,  there  are  difficulties  of  no  inconsiderable  force  in  holding 
that  defaults  of  this  class  draw  with  them  any  detiuite  liability  to  make 
pecuniary  reparation.  It  is  difficult — very  often  it  is  practically  impos- 
sible— to  ascertain,  with  any  approach  to  accuracy,  what  measure  of  loss 
ought  with  justice  to  be  ascribed  to  the  default  complained  of,  or  even, 
perhaps,  whether  it  was  a  substantial  cause  of  any  loss  at  all. 

For  this  reason,  probably,  as  well  as  from  the  reluctance  usually  felt 
to  bring  accusations  of  negligence  agaiust  a  friendly  government,  claims 
such  as  the  United  States  now  urge  against  Great  Britain  have  rarely 
been  made;  and  have  never,  so  far  as  Her  Majesty's  goverumeut  is 
aware,  been  conceded  or  recognized.  Where  prizes  made  by  vessels 
armed  for  war,  or  which  have  augmented  their  warlike  force,  within 
neutral  territory,  have  afterward  been  brought  within  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  neutral,  it  is  the  acknowledged  right,  and  it  may  be  the  duty,  of 
the  neutral  power  to  cause  them  to  be  restored  on  application.  Beyond 
this  point  no  recognized  neutral  authority  or  established  precedent  has 
hitherto  extenued  the  liability  of  the  neutral. 

If  the  conduct  of  the  United  States  under  similar  (or,  rather,  under 
much  stronger)  circumstances,  were  made  the  measure  of  their  right  to 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


381 


iiKleniDification  in  the  present  inquiry ;  if  the  rule  of  compensation  were 
sought  in  the  precedent  (to  which  they  have  themselves,  in  their  own 
Case,  appealed)  of  the  treaty  of  1704,  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain,  and  in  the  decisions  of  the  commissions  under  the  seventh 
article  of  that  treaty,  no  pecuniary  compensation  whatever  could  be 
found  due  from  Great  Britain  for  any  captures  made  at  sea,  and  not 
brought  into  British  ports;  although  the  vessels  which  made  those  cap- 
tures may  have  been  illegally  fitted  out  in,  and  dispatched  from,  British 
ports,  through  some  want  of  due  diligence  on  the  part  of  British  author- 
ities. 

If  the  relative  positions  of  the  government  of  the  Confederate  States 
and  its  officers,  to  whose  acts  the  losses  in  question  are  directly  attribu- 
table, and  of  the  British  government  (whose  neutrality  they  violated) 
toward  the  United  States,  who  now  make  these  claims,  are  justly  esti- 
mated, the  more  difficult  it  will  be  to  see  how  (upon  the  supposition  of  a 
w  ant  of  due  diligence  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  in  guarding  her  own 
neutrality)  any  pecuniary  compensation  whatever  can  be  claimed  from 
(ireat  Britain.  The  whole  responsibility  of  the  acts  which  caused  these 
losses  belonged,  primarily,  to  the  Confederate  States ;  they  were  all 
done  by  them,  beyond  the  Jurisdiction  and  control  of  Great  BritJiin  ; 
wrong  was  done  by  them  to  Great  Britain,  in  the  very  infraction  of  her 
laws,  which  constitutes  the  foundation  of  the  present  claims.  But  from 
tbem  no  pecuniary  reparation  whatever  for  these  losses  has  been,  or  is 
now,  exacted  by  the  conquerors ;  what  has  been  condoned  to  the  prin- 
cipals is  sought  to  be  exacted  from  those  who  were,  at  the  most,  passively 
accessory  to  those  losses,  through  a  wrong  done  to  them  and  against 
their  will.  The  very  States  which  did  the  wrong  are  part  of  the  United 
States,  who  now  seek  to  throw  the  pecuniary  liability  for  that  wrong 
solely  and  exclusively  upon  Great  Britain,  herself  (as  far,  at  least,  as 
they  are  concerned)  the  injured  party.  They  have  been  re-admitted  to 
their  former  full  participation  in  the  rights  and  pri\ilege8  of  the  Federal 
Constitution ;  they  send  their  members  to  the  Senate  and  the  House  of 
Kepresentatives ;  they  take  part  in  the  election  of  the  President ;  they 
would  share  in  any  benefit  which  the  public  revenue  of  the  United 
States  might  derive  from  whatever  might  be  awarded  by  the  arbitrators 
to  be  paid  by  Great  Britain.  On  what  principle  of  international  equity 
can  a  federal  commonwealth,  so  composed,  seek  to  throw  upon  a  neutral, 
assumed  at  the  most  to  have  been  guilty  of  some  degree  of  negligence, 
liabilities  which  belonged  in  the  first  degree  to  its  own  citizens,  with 
whom  it  has  now  re-entered  into  relations  of  political  unity,  and  from 

which  it  has  wholly  absolved  those  citizens  i 
*The  British  government,  however,  while  deeming  it  right  to 

present  these  considerations  to  the  notice  of  the  arbitrators,  will 
not  (tmit  to  deal  with  the  ulterior  questions  which  must  arise,  in 
tlie  event  of  the  arbitrators  being  of  opinion  that  claims  of  this  nature- 
are  not  absolutely  inadmissible,  should  the  United  States  succeed  in 
establishing  any  failure  of  duty  sufficient  to  support  them  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  tribunal.  Nor  does  it  attirm  that,  in  that  case,  no  award  of 
compensation  ought  to  be  made,  unless  the  amount  of  loss  properly  as- 
signable to  the  default  can  be  estimated  with  exact  i)reci8ion.  But  it 
firmly  maintains  that  the  duty  intrusted  to  the  tribuiml  would  not  be 
satistied  by  finding,  as  to  any  particular  ship,  that  (ireat  Britain  had 
failed  to  discharge  some  international  duty,  and  then  proceeding  at 
once  to  charge  her  with  all  the  losses  directly  occasioned  to  the  United 
State's  by  the  operations  of  that  ship.  This,  indeed,  would  be  so  mani- 
fest an  injustice  that  it  is  needless  to  argue  against  it.    Should  the 


loo 


EE-i! 


Ml 


m 


382 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON. 


S,  !; 

I  i 

I  i 

^  i 


w 


■T' 


arbitrators  be  satisfied  that,  as  to  any  ship,  and  in  any  ])articular,  there 
has  been  a  clearly  ascertained  defanlt  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  it 
would  then  become  their  duty  to  examine  wherein  the  default  consisted, 
and  whether  it  was  a  Just  ground  for  pecuniary  reparation;  and,  if  so, 
to  determine  the  general  limits  of  the  liability  incurred,  havii-  eganl 
both  to  the  nature  and  gravity  of  the  default  itself,  and  tb''  ^  loportion 
of  loss  justly  and  reasonably  assignable  to  it.  The  liability  thus  de- 
termined, or  the  aggregate  of  such  liabilities,  as  the  case  may  be,  con- 
stitutes, it  is  evident,  the  only  just  measure  of  the  compensation,  if  any, 
to  be  awarded  to  the  United  States.  The  basis  of  the  award  must  be 
the  fact,  established  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  arbitrators,  that  certain 
losses  have  been  sustained  on  the  one  side,  which  are  justly  attributable 
to  certain  specific  failures  of  duty  on  the  other,  in  respect  of  a  cer,;ain  ship 
or  ships;  and  the  basis  of  the  award  must  also  be  the  basis  for  comput- 
ing the  sum  to  be  awarded.  The  power  of  awarding  a  gross  sum  does 
not,  it  need  hardly  be  observed,  authorize  the  arbitrators  to  depart,  in 
substance,  from  this  basis,  although  it  may  relieve  them  from  the  neces- 
sity of  a  minute  inquiry  into  the  jiarticulars  of  alleged  losses,  and  from 
intricate  and  perhaps  inconclusive  calculations. 

The  arbitrators  will  have  observed  the  manner  in  which  these  claims 
are  dealt  with  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States.  Specific  foilures  of 
duty  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  are  alleged  in  respect  of  each  of  the 
vessels  enumerated.  Great  Britain  is  then  charged  indiscriminately 
with  all  the  losses  occasioned  by  the  acts  of  all  the  vessels,  and,  in  addi- 
tion, with  expenses  said  to  have  been  incurred  by  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  in  vainly  endeavoring  to  capture  them.  Thus,  the 
Florida  and  Alabama  were  obtained  as  unarmed  vessels  from  England ; 
one  was  aimed  in  Portuguese  waters,  the  other  was  manned  and  made 
capable  of  cruising  in  a  confederate  port.  Great  Britain  is  called  upon 
to  pay  for  all  the  losses  which  can  be  attributed  to  the  Florida  and 
Alabama — ^nay,  more,  for  all  losses  occasioned  by  other  vessels  which 
were  captured  and  armed  at  sea  by  the  commanders  of  those  cruisers. 
The  Tallahassee  was  built  as  a  trading-vessel  in  England,  and  was 
afterward  converted  into  a  ship  of  war  in  the  Confederate  States. 
This  country  is  to  pay  for  all  the  captures  of  the  Tallahassee.  The 
Sumter  received  ordinary  hospitalities  in  a  British  port;  and  Great 
Brit|in  is  to  be  charged  with  captures  made  by  the  Sumter.  Interest 
on  the  amount  of  these  losses  and  expenses  is  also  asked  for,  to  be  com- 
puted at  seven  per  cent,  per  annum  from  the  1st  July,  18G8 — a  date 
long  antecedent  to  the  dates  at  which  a  large  proportion  of  the  alleged 
losses  and  expenses  are  stated  to  have  been  incurretl. 

In  calculating  the  losses  themselves,  which  is  a  separate  branch  of 
the  question,  the  American  Government  appears  to  have  presented, 
without  discrimination,  all  claims  which  any  persons,  alleging  them- 
selves to  have  been  interested  in  captured  ships  or  cargoes,  have  thought 
proper  to  make.  Claims  are  also  presented  for  i)ublic  property  of  the 
United  States,  captured  or  destroyed  by  some  of  the  confederate  cruisers, 
and,  further,  for  expenditure  stated  to  have  been  incurred  in  the  "pur- 
suit" of  these  cruisers. 

The  claims  presented  under  those  three  heads  have  been  referred  for 
examination  to  departments  of  Her  Majesty's  government  conversant 
with  the  classes  of  matters  to  which  the  claims  relate;  and  the  results 
of  this  examination  are  embodied  in  two  reports,  to  which  Her  Majesty's 
government  requests  the  attention  of  the  arbitrators.^    The  object  o" 


'  These  reports  will  be  fouud  iu  vol.  vii  of  the  Appendix  to  the  Case  of  Great  Britaiu- 


1^ 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


383 


the  exiuuinatiou  has  beeu  to  discover  how  far,  on  the  data  furui.shcd  by 
the  United  States  themselves,  the  estimate  of  losses  alleged  to  have 
been  sustained,  and  of  expenditure  alleged  to  L.tie  beeu  incurred,  could 
be  regarded  as  reasonable  estiumtes,  ^rmm/oc/e,  of  losses  actually  sus- 
tained, and  of  an  expenditure  which  could,  on  any  hypothesis,  be  held 
chargeable  upon  Great  Britain.  AVhether,  on  the  iacts  proved  before 
the  arbitrators,  Great  Britain  ought  to  be  charged  with  any,  and 
fI34]  what  part  of  the  losses'  sustained,  is  of  course  a  *distinct  ques- 
tion ;  and  it  is  again  a  distinct  <iuestiou  whether,  upon  any  sound 
]»iiiiciple,  she  ought  to  be  charged  with  any,  and  what  i>art,  of  the  al- 
leged expenditure. 

CLAIMS  I-OR  PRIVATE  LOSSES. 


se  of  Great  Britaiu- 


A  reference  to  the  first  of  these  reports  (that  from  the  committee 
appointed  by  the  board  of  trade)  will  convince  the  arbitrators  that  no 
reliance  can  be  placed  on  the  estimate  presented  of  alleged  ci„,„,  f„  p„„,g 
private  losses,  and  that  were  the  tribunal  to  hold  Great  '"""^ 
Britain  liable  in  respect  of  any  one  or  more  of  the  enumerated  cruisers, 
aud  to  decide  on  awarding  a  gross  sum  for  compensation,  these  esti- 
mates could  not  safely  be  accepted  as  furnishing  even  a  prima  facie  basis 
for  the  computation  of  such  a  gross  sum. 

These  claims  include — 

1.  Claims  for  the  value  of  ships,  freighte«l  with  cargo,  destroy*  u  by 
confederate  cruisers ;  for  the  consejpient  loss  of  freight,  aud  for  the 
value  of  the  cargo. 

2.  Claims  for  vessels  in  ballast. 

3.  Claims  by  owners  of  whaling  and  fishing  vessels  destroyed  ;  for  the 
value  of  the  vessels  themselves ;  for  the  oil  aud  fish  which  were  on  board 
of  them,  and  also  for  the  gross  earnings  which  it  is  supposed  they  might 
have  realized  if  their  voyages  had  not  been  interrupted  by  capture ;  in 
other  words,  for  prospective  and  speculative  earnings. 

4.  Claims  by  American  insurance  companies  in  respect  of  insurances 
oil  ships,  cargoes,  freights,  and  profits,  which  are  alleged  to  have  been 
lost  or  destroyed  by  the  capture  of  the  vessels. 

5.  Claims  for  masters'  wages,  for  personal  effects  taken  or  destroyed, 
and  personal  damages. 

On  the  claims  presented  under  the  first  head  the  following  observa- 
tions, among  others,  are  made  in  the  report : 

It  will  at  otice  be  admitted,  hy  those  who  are  at  all  familiar  with  the  practice  of  the 
courts  in  maritime  cases,  that  it  is  impossible  to  jilace  much  reliaiiee  on  the  opinion  or 
evidence  of  ship-owners  or  merchants  as  to  the  value  of  proj)erty  which  they  are  seeking 
to  recover.  Ship-owners  are  in  the  habitof  founding  their  estimate,  not  on  what  wouhl  be 
the  market-price  of  the  vessel  at  the  time  of  her  loss,  but  on  theorigiifal  cost-price,  and 
often  take  into  account  the  amounts  which  they  have  expended  at  dirt'erent  times  with 
out  making  any  proper  deduction  for  the  weur  aud  tear  and  damage  which  has  been 
sustained.  Mercbants  are  inclined  to  estimate  the  value  of  their  goods  by  the  proftts 
which  they  had  hoped  to  realize,  without  nuikiug  any  allowance  for  the  risk  of  the 
market-price  falling  or  other  contingencies  on  whicii  those  profits  so  often  depend. 

A  striking  illustration  of  the  trutli  of  these  remarks  may  be  found  in  the  case  of  the 
IWitish  vessel  which  was  sunk  in  the  river  Seine  in  the  course  of  the  military  opera- 
tions conducted  by  tlie  German  armies  in  tlie  recent  war  with  France.  The  owners 
ine.sented  a  claim  f>'-  £'iO,'J70;  but  when  this  claim,  which  was  intrusted  for  investi- 
,!j:itiou  by  the  GerUiiiu  government  to  Her  Majesty's  goverunu^nt,  was  sifted  and  exam- 
ined by  the  board  of  trade,  it  was  fotind,  in  accordance  with  the  very  able  report  of 
the  Iciuned  registrar  of  the  court  of  admiralty,  that  the  owners  were  not  (Mititled  to 
any  larger  amount  than  £«),'*'.>•.). 

There  is,  to  say  the  least,  iw  reason  to  supjKise  that  the  statements  made  by  the 
ilitiniaiits  in  the  presentcase  as  to  the  valuesof  the  vessels,  their  freights,  earnings,  and 
liirgoes,  are  more  tru.stworthy  than  such  statements  are  generally  found  to  be  when 


>  > 

>  Ml 


ife'^y 


u  :h:'^ 


im 


384 


TKKATY    OF    WASHINGTON, 


I 


IM 


properly  tfHted  and  examined.  We  find,  for  instance,  as  we  have  already  wtated,  h\v]v. 
owners  pnttiuj;  forward  claims  for  fnll  freights  and  earnings,  without  making  any  de- 
ductions whatsoever,  so  that  they  are,  in  etlect,  demanding  profits  at  a  rate  exceeding  'Jdu 
per  cent.,  and  sometimes  exceeding  2,000  per  cent.,  per  annum.  vVo  tind  in  that  class 
of  claims  which  we  noticed  in  the  first  place,  and  wiiich  are  the  most  important  us 
regards  amount,  the  owners  of  whaling-vessels  demanding  the  whole  vahie  of  their 
ships  and  outfits,  although  they  have  received  more  than  .$700,000  from  insurance  com- 
panies, who  at  the  same  time,  and  in  addition,  put  forward  a  claim  for  the  saiiio 
amount.  Wo  find  the  charterer  claiming  for  tbe  loss  of  the  charter-party,  or  his  protit 
thereon,  while  the  ship-owner  demands  ihe  freight  in  full ;  and  finally,  we  find  mei- 
chanta  claiming  profits  on  their  goods  at  the  rate  of  30  and  40,  and  even  50,  j>er  cent. 
per  annum,  without  making  any  allowance  for  freight  and  for  charges  jiayahle  at  tlio 
port  of  destination.  Under  these  circumstances  we  think  it  right  to  express,  most 
emphatically,  our  dissent  from  the  assertion  made  in  l>age  471  in  the  sixth  part  of  tlie, 
American  Case,  "  that  the  statement  shows  all  the  facts  necessary  to  enable  the  tribuiiai 
to  reach  a  conclusiou  as  to  the  amount  of  injury  committed  bj'  the  cruisers."  On  tlic 
contrary,  that  this  assertion  was  not  in  any  degree  warranted  w  ill  appear  from  the 
two  following  radical  defects  in  the  statement :  ki  the  first  jdace,  as  regards  the  shi|m, 
neither  their  age  nor  their  class  is  given,  and  in  some  cases  not  even  their  tonnage; 
as  regards  the  cargoes,  in  no  instance  do  the  claims  specify  tlie  (|uantity  either  in  meas- 
urement or  weight,  and  in  the  cases  of  ships  loaded  with  general  cargo  the  tjuality  or 
description  of  the  goods  is  not  even  mentioned  or  indicated.  In  the  second  place,  tlie 
statement  is  framed,  to  say  the  least,  in  so  imperfect  a  manner  that,  in  the  majority  of 
cases,  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  even  what  is  the  value  given  by  the  claimants  them- 
selves to  their  own  property.' 

[135J  *  Under  tbe  second  head  very  large  sums  are  claimed  as  <fro.ss 
freights  for  vessels  which  had  no  cargo  on  board,  which  niifilit 
never  have  been  loaded  with  cargo,  and  which  conld  not  have  earned 
these  freights  without  very  heavj'  expenditure  and  considerable  wear 
and  tear,  consumption  of  stores,  and  depreciation  of  ship  and  outfit: 
freights  also,  which  would  not  have  been  received,  if  at  all,  until  after 
the  lapse,  in  each  case,  of  a  very  long  period  subsequent  to  the  date  of 
the  capture. 
On  claims  under  the  third  head  it  is  observed  : 

The  whaling  and  fishing  voyages  for  which  these  vessels,  vessels  generally  of  small 
tonnage,  are  equipped,  provisioned,  and  outfitted,  extend  over  long  periods,  rarely  of 
less  than  three  or  four  years,  ao  that  the  outfit  and  stores  with  which  they  are  origi- 
nally provided  are  of  proportionately  great  value ;  in  fact,  in  the  great  majority  of 
cases,  of  much  greater  value  than  the  vessels  themselves.  In  the  course  of  these  voy- 
ages the  vessels  put  into  port  from  time  to  time,  and  disbursements  are  made  by  the 
masters,  who  draw  for  this  purpose  upon  their  owners,  and  the  master  and  crew,  in 
lieu  of  wages,  generally  receive  a  share  of  the  vessel's  earnings.  At  the  end  of  the 
voyages  the  vessels  are  necessarily  very  considerably  deteriorated  by  wear  and  tear. 
their  stores  are  almost  entirely  consumed,  and  the  greater  part  of  tlieir  apparel  and 
outfit  rendered  completely  unserviceable  and  worthless.  This  being  tl.-  general 
character  of  these  whaling  and  fishing  adventures,  it  is  ditticult  to  conceive  a  case  in 
which  damages  can  be  of  a  more  speculative  or  contingent  character  than  those  whicii 
are  claimed  tor  the  loss  of  the  gross  earnings  which  the  owners  might  be  expected  to 
have  realize<l  at  the  termination  of  these  long  voyages,  which  were  prematurely  put 
'  an  end  to  by  the  capture  of  the  vessels.  In  the  first  i)lace,  the  realization  of  the  earn- 
ings and  the  estimate  of  their  amount  in  this  most  hazardous  and  speculative  of  trades 
must  necessarily  be  in  the  highest  degree  uncertain  and  problematical.  In  the  second 
place,  even  if  it  were  practicaole  to  estimate  the  probable  amount  of  the.se  prospective 
earnings,  a  claim  for  that  amount  would  be  entirely  illusoiy,  unless  enormous  deduc- 
tions were  made,  which  again  are  difficult  to  estimate  in  any  one  particular  case  witii 
any  reasonable  degree  of  certainty,  such  as  deductions  for  the  very  considerable  wear  anil 
tear  of  the  vessels,  the  very  great  consumption  of  stores,  and  the  destruction  of  by  far 
the  greater  part  of  the  outfit,  which  must  necessarily  have  taken  place  before  the  fidl 
earnings  could  have  been  realized.  It  is  therefore  manifest  that  in  the  damages  for 
which  compensation  is  demanded  in  the  claims  now  under  consideration  there  exist  all 
those  elements  of  uncertainty,  remoteness,  and  difflculity  which  would  undoubtedly 
lead  the  courts,  both  in  America  and  in  England,  to  rejb^„  the  claim  altogether,  in 
accordance  with  the  principles  laid  down  iu  the  judgments  which  have  been  already 
cited  or  referred  to.* 


'  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  vii,  p.  11. 

*  The  English  case  of  the  Columbus,  2  W.  Robinson,  158  ;  the  American  cases  of  the 
Lively,  1  Gallison,  315;  the  Amiable  Nancy,  3  Wheaton,  346;  the  Amistad  de  Rues,  5 
Wheaton,  345. 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    GREAT   BRITAIN. 


385 


The  mode, moreover,  in  whirh  this  claim  for  prospective  earnings  had  hcon  preferred 
loaves  one  without  the  slightest  data  for  estimating  in  any  one  individual  case  the 
oonipensatiou  which  could,  with  any  propriety,  he  claimed  for  these  contingent  profits. 
Tiie  total  claim  in  respect  of  the  whaling  and  fishing  vessels  amounts  to  ahont 
f8,f)00,000,  ahout  half  of  which  is  demandtnl  for  the  loss  of  prospective  earnings,  with- 
out any  deduction  whatever.  The  claim  is,  therefore,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case, 
for  reasons  already  stated,  perfectly  illusory,  and  we  are  scarcely  surprised  to  find  that 
this  enormous  claim  for  prospective  earnings,  which  is  really  double  the  value  ascribed 
by  the  claimants  themselves  to  the  ships  and  outfits,  can  bd  proved,  as  will  be 
shown  hereafter,  to  be  equivalent  to  claiming,  over  and  above  the  whole  capital 
invested  in  those  speculative  adventures,  a  profit  on  such  capital  at  a  rate  exceeding 
300  per  cent,  per  annum.' 

On  the  fourth  head  it  is  observed  : 

The  American  insurance  companies,  who  have  paid  the  owners  as  for  a  total  loss, 
are,  iu  our  opinion,  entitled  to  be  subrogated  to  the  rights  of  the  latter,  according  to 
the  well-known  principle  that  an  underwriter  who  hiis  paid  as  for  a  total  loss  aciiuires 
the  rights  of  the  assured  in  respect  of  the  subject-matter  of  insurance.  This  principle 
was  explained  and  acted  on  iu  the  well-known  English  cases  of  Randall  r«.  Cochran, 
1  Ves.  Sen.,  98,  and  the  Quebec  Fire  Insurance  Company  r>*.  Saint  Louis,  7  Moore,  P.  C., 
236,  and  is  well  recognized  by  the  courts  of  America.  Ou  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally 
clear  that  the  underwriters  cannot  be  entitled  to  anything  more  than  the  assured 
themselves;  for  the  claim  of  the  former  is  founded  on  nothing  else  than  their  title  to 
he  subrogated  to  the  rights  which  the  latter  possessed,  and  which,  therefore,  cannot 
possibly  be  more  extensive  than  the  claim  whicii  the  latter  would  be  entitled  to  main- 
tain. From  these  considerations  two  consequences  follow  :  In  the  first  place,  where 
the  claimant  is  the  insurance  company  and  not  the  owner,  compensation  cannot  be  duo 
for  any  sum  exceeding  the  anmunt  of  the  actual  loss  sustained  by  the  owner,  however 
much  that  sum  may  fall  short  of  the  amount  paid  by  the  company  by  reason  of  the 
property  having  been  over-insured.  In  the  second  place,  wherever  the  owner  puts  for- 
ward a  claim  for  his  loss  at  the  same  time  that  the  insurance  company  .also  claims  the 
money  paid  by  them  in  respect  of  tiie  s.ame  loss,  such  a  double  claim  must  at  once  be 
absolutely  rejected,  since  to  allow  it  would  be  in  etfoct  to  sanction  the  payment  of  the 
loss  twice  over.^ 

This  double  daim  is,  however,  made  in  a  great  number  of  cases.       , 
Thus,  as  to  the  whaling  and  ftshing  vessels,  it  is  remarked  : 

[13()]  *The  sums  claimed  by  insurance  companies  in  respect  of  the  vessels  we  are 
now  dealing  with,  as  well  as  in  respect  of  their  secured  and  prospective  earn- 
ings, amount  to  the  sum  of  ift9()2,8:?'2.  On  examining  the  list  of  claims  it  will  bo  seiii 
tliat  there  are  live  cases,  namely,  those  of  the  Alert,  Jtage  3  of  the  printed  list ;  the 
Covington,  page  184  ;  the  Catherine,  page  181 ;  the  General  William,  page  ID'i  ;  and 
the  Gipsey,  page  19*2,  in  which  the  owners  give  credit  for  moneys  they  have  received 
from  their  underwriters  ;  but  we  believe  it  will  also  be  found  that  these  are  the  only 
cases  in  which  that  course  has  been  adopted.  In  all  the  other  cases  the  owners  claim 
from  Groat  Britain  the  total  value  of  the  shij)s  and  outfits,  as  Avell  as  their  secured  and 
prospectiveearnings,  without  deducting  any  sums  received  by  them  from  the  insurance 
lonipanies ;  while  at  the  same  time  the  insurance  companies  also  put  forward  their 
claims  to  those  very  same  sums. 

It  may  be  somewhat  interesting  to  note  the  mode  in  which  this  double  claim  arises. 
The  enumer.ation  of  the  ditterent  items  constituting  a  claim  in  respect  of  any  one 
captured  vessel  is  preceded  by  the  statement  of  the  total  sum  claimed  ;  then  in  most 
instances  the  different  items  are  set  out,  consisting  simply  of  the  alleged  values  of  the 
property  or  earnings  lost,  and  these  are  followed  by  the  claims  made  oti  behalf  of  in- 
surance companies  for  the  anmnnts  paid  by  them  to  the  owners  in  respect  of  the  same 
property  and  earnings.  With  the  exception  of  the  live  memorable  cases  just  men- 
tioned, the  total  claim  is  alwjiys  formed  l)y  adding  the  lirst  class  of  items  to  the  second 
class,  without  making  any  deduction.  In  many  cases  this  is  done  without  anv  com- 
ment or  notice  whatsoever  ;  in  others,  .and  especially  in  those  relating  to  the  S'henau- 
iloah,  the  owners  frankly  state  that  "  they  claim  the  full  value  of  their  property,  irre- 
spective of  the  partial  insurance  received;"  or  boldly  "  protest  against  any  diminution 
of  their  claim  by  reason  of  insurance."  It  follows,  therefore,  for  reasons  which  have 
been  already  explained,  that  the  sum  of  $774,183  obtained  by  deducting  from  the 
total  .amount  of  insurances  the  sum  of  $128,649,  being  the  amount  of  the  insurances  iu 
the  five  exceptional  cases,  represents  losses  which  are,  in  eft'ect,  claimed  twice  over  • 


■^/::'^ 


25  A— II 


'  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  vii,  p.  7. 
2  Ibid.,  p.  5. 


1 


386 


TRKATY    OF    WASHIN<JTON. 


suul  tliiH  Hiinplo  cniiHitloratiou  enahh'.s  uh,  witbuiit  hesitation  or  (lilliculty,  to  strikt;  oil 
UNO  ictu  tiiiH  HUiii  of  $774,183,  ur  all  but  10  iier  cunt,  uf  tbu  total  claim.' 

As  to  claiuis  for  masters'  wages,  the  report  observes : 

A  claim  for  loss  of  wajjcs  by  the  master  has,  w«  believe,  never  been  allowed  in  tin- 
English  or  American  courts  in  cases  of  collision  or  capture,  or  other  similar  cases.  In 
the  second  place,  if  such  a  claim  were  not  inadmissible,  it  would  be  necessary  to  tiikc 
into  account  t'-e  fact  that  the  master  probably  obtained  other  employment,  and  thereby 
earned  other  wages  after  the  capture  of  his  vessel,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  w  hen  Im 
contract«!d  with  liis  owners  the  risk  of  the  vessel  being  captured  was  probably  taken 
into  account  in  fixing  the  wages.  Finally,  it  must  be  ol)served  that  the  claim  of  tin- 
nuiHter  for  loss  of  wages  when  advanced  at  the  same  time,  as  it  invariably  is  in  tiu- 
present  case,  with  a  claim  by  the  ship-owner  for  full  freight,  is  not  less  unjust  than  tiif 
claim  by  the  ownt-r  for  the  anu>unt  of  his  loss  when  followt^l  immediately  by  the  elaiiu 
of  the  insurance  company  for  the  very  same  amount ;  for  it  is  out  of  the  gross  fici^ht 
that  the  wages  would  liav((  been  paid,  and  witliout  such  payment  the  gross  frtiy;lit 
could  not  have  been  earned. - 

It  luibst  be  acbled  tliat  the  dairns  lor  porsonul  ett'ects  appear  in  many 
instances  to  be  plainly  exorbitant,  an«l  that  claims  are  also  made  fur 
personal  losses  of  a  remote  and  indirect  kind,  such  as  would  never  be 
allowed  in  the  courts  of  any  country.  Thus  heavy  dama{][es  are  dainiiMl 
by  one  man  for  the  loss  of  a  valuable  situation,  and  by  another  for  tiu' 
loss  of  an  appointment  as  consid,  which  he  ,;!  eges  himself  to  have  .siis 
tained  by  detention  on  board  the  captured  vessel. 

The  general  result  of  thisexaujination  as  to  the  private  losses  is  to  re 
duce  the  estimated  amount  of  the  claims  on  account  of  t!ie  Alabama  from 
$0,537,011  to  $3,288,851  ;  of  the  Florida,  from  $3,01)3,302  to  $2,035,508; 
of  the  Shenandoah,  fiom  $0,300,894  to $1,377,310;  and  the  total  amount 
claimed  from  $17,703,910  to  $8,039,085;  and  this  is  believed  to  be  a 
liberal,  as  it  is  certainly  a  careful,  estimate.'*  Whether  any  part  ot 
this  latter  sura — and,  if  any,  how  much — might  with  justice  be  charged 
against  Great  Britain,  is,  as  the  arbitrators  have  been  reminded,  an  en 
tirely  distinct  question,  depending  on  the  decision  of  the  arbitrators  as 
to  the  existence  and  the  extent  of  any  liability  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain  in  respect  of  the  several  vessels  to  whose  acts  respectively  the 
different  constituent  parts  of  this  aggregate  loss  are  to  be  ascribed. 

Her  Majesty's  government  supposes  that  the  Governmentof  the  United 
States  has  deemed  it  i)roper  to  accept  and  present  to  the  arbitrators 
the  amounts  at  which  the  several  private  claimants  have  stated  their 
own  losses  as  suiHcient  for  the  immediate  purpose  of  the  present  pro- 
ceeding. But  the  arbitrators  must  be  well  aware  that  claims  of  this 
nature,  put  forward  by  private  i)ersons,  cannot  safely  be  accepted,  even 
as  furnishing  materials  for  ^>iwm  facie  estimate,  without  strict  scrutiny, 
and  it  is  clear  that  this  remark  applies  very  forcibly  to  the  claims  now 
under  consideration. 


[137]       *CLAIMS    FOR    NATIONAL    LOSSES    BY    THE    DESTRUCTION 
PUBLIC   PROPERTY    OP  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


OF 


The  claims  for  public  property  of  the  United  States  destroyed  by 

confederate  cruisers  relate  to  the  war-steamer  Hatteras, 

I (.*"»%"' tiTe""!!"  sunk  in  action  by  the  Alabama;  to  the  barks  Greenland 

I'rolJeVi'y  "of  ""'ihe  auA  Whistliug  Wind,  said  to  have  been  laden  with  coal. 

and  destroyed  respectively  by  the  Florida  and  a  confederate 

vessel  called  the  Coquette;  and  to  the  steam   revenue-cutter  Caleb 

'  Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  vii,  p.  16. 
'  Ibid.,  p.  13. 
'Ibid.,  p.  36. 


'J  ■    .«.> 


to  8triki;  ot) 


lUtjWfd  ill  tin- 
lur  cast's.  In 
■ssiiry  to  take 
t,  iUid  thorcliy 
tliat  wlu'ii  111! 
:ol)alil,Y  taken 
)  claim  of  the 
iibly  is  in  tlic 
ijiist  than  till' 
y  by  tilt)  i-laini 
i  }»rosH  fn'ijilit 
I  gross  tVt'ij^lit 

'Sir  in  many 
so  lujule  lor 
hi  never  bl- 
are claiiMt'd 
>ther  for  tlii' 
to  have  sus 

Sises  is  to  re 
labamatVoiii 
>  $2,035,508; 
Dotal  ainonnt 
!ved  to  be  a 
any  part  ot 
e  be  chargeil 
niled,  an  en 
rbitrators  as 
art  of  Great 
peetively  tin- 
Ascribed. 
oftlieUuitt'tl 
3  arbitrators 
stated  tbeir 
l)resent  pro- 
aims  of  this 
icepted,  eyou 
rict  scrutiny, 
chiiius  now 


RUCTION    01' 


lestroyed  by 
er  Hatteras, 
[8  Greenhuul 
11  with  coal. 
a,  confederate 
cutter  Caleb 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    UREA  I'    BRITAIN. 


.'{87 


Cii.sliin^,  cut  out  and  destroyed  by  the  Archer,  whitih  is  alleged  to  have 
been  acting  as  a  tender  to  the  Florida. 

The  Hatteras  was  detached  from  Commodore  Bell's  scpiadron,  then 
blockading  (ialveston,  to  chase  the  Alabama,  which  had  appeared  in 
the  oftiug.  The  destruction  of  this  ship  appears  to  have  been  clearly 
due  to  tlie  failure  of  the  squadron  to  sup[>ort  her ;  and  Her  Majesty's 
government  conceives  that  the  claim  on  account  of  her  is,  on  this 
ground,  inadmissible,  8ui)posing  that  it  could  be  supported  on  other 
grounds. 

Tlie  case  of  the  Caleb  ('ushing  betrays  such  remissness  on  the  part  of 
tiiose  intrusted  with  the  charge  and  defeuvse  of  the  great  fortilietl  harbor 
of  Portland  (where  this  revenue-cutter  lay)  in  allowing  her  to  be  cut 
out  under  the  very  guns  of  the  fort  by  tiie  boats  of  an  armed  vessel 
Avhi(!h  had  been  a  small  Hshing-schooner,  that,  even  should  the  tribunal 
hold  that  Great  IJritain  has  incurred  any  liability  to  the  United  States 
lor  captures  n)ade  by  tenders  of  the  Florida,  this  claim  ought  not 
to  be  entertained. 

As  to  the  Whistling  Wind,  it  must  be  observed  that  the  Coqtiette,  by 
which  she  is  said  to  have  been  captured,  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Case 
of  the  United  States  as  a  tender  to  the  Florida,  and  there  is  no  evidence, 
so  far  as  Her  Majesty's  government  is  aware,  that  she  was  such. 


CLAIMS   FOR    EXPENDITURE    ALLEOED   TO    HAVE    llEEN    INCURRED 
THE   PURSUIT   OE   CONFEDERATE   CRUISERS. 


IN 


been  in(iirri'(!  in  rtif 
piir?<uit  e)t'  r(inf»'dtrr- 
lilt'  cruineri*. 


In  the  second  of  the  twf»  reports  above  referred  to,  (that  from  the 
committee  apiminted  by  the  board  of  admiralty,)  the  arbi-     ^  ^ 

trators  will  tind  an  examination  of  the  claims  presented  on  iturn' .""."a  ^T">' 
this  account.  It  is  obviously  impossible,  without  any  mate- 
rials whatever  for  verification  or  comi)arison,  to  ascertain 
whether  the  several  items  for  coal,  outfit,  expenses  of  navigation,  and 
the  like,  do  or  do  not  correctly  represent  the  actual  expenditure  under 
these  various  heads.  Her  Majesty's  government  deems  it  necessary  to 
point  out  that  these  accounts  contain  many  obvious  errors,'  many  dis- 
crepancies, which  there  are  no  means  of  reconciling,  and  a  great  num- 
ber of  charges  which,  in  the  absence  of  explanation,  cannot  but  be 
deemed  excessive.^ 

It  must  be  further  observed,  however,  that  these  claims  for  expend- 
iture include  not  only  vessels  stated  to  have  been  employed  in  seeking 
for  the  several  cruisers  specified  in  the  United  States  Case,  including 
the  Sumter  and  the  Tallahassee,  (which  were  fitted  out  in  confederate 
ports,)  but  also  others  dispatched  after  the  Rappahannock,  (which  is  not 
among  the  specified  vessels,  and  on  account  of  which  the  case  makes 
no  claim,)  and  the  Chesapeake,  (which  is  not  even  mentioned  in  the 
Case,)  and  others  again,  which  were  employed  in  the  general  duties 


'For  example,  the  whole  amount  of  the  Sheppard  Kiiapp'8  outfit  is  charged,  although 
in  the  official  accouut  of  her  loss  in  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  United  States 
Navy  to  Congress  of  the  7th  December,  186;l,  p.  5.56,  it  is  stated  that  '•  her  battery  (11 
guns)  and  appointments,  ordnance^  yeoman's  and  master's  stores,  instruments  and 
charts,  provisions  and  clothing,  spars,  sails,  running  and  standing  rigging,  anchors 
and  chains,  everything  portable  and  of  value  to  the  Government,  has  been  saved.  The 
only  loss  is  the  bull  and  the  use  of  the  ship."— (Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  vii,  p.  90.) 

'For  example,  the  charges  under  the  head  of  medicine  and  surgery  amount  to 
828,604.94.  The  medical  director-general  of  Her  Majesty's  navy  states  that  £2,500 
would  probably  cover  the  charge  for  medicines  and  medical  stores  for  7,600  men  for 
;?03  days  in  Her  Majesty's  navy.  And  this  appears  to  have  been  the  total  of  the  com- 
plements of  the  United  States  cruisers. — (Ibid.,  p.  93.) 


'>''■; 

i 

i 

1*^  ' 

•■'' 

1':' 

15:    ! 


«;■ 


.*J88 


TREATY   OF    WASHINGTON. 


incidental  to  a  state  of  war,  such  as  convoy,  the  protection  of  fisheries, 
intercepting  blockade-runners  and  ships  laden  with  contraband  of  w»r, 
and  crnisinjj;  in  search  of  enemy's  privateers  generally.  Sailing  orders, 
in  which  this  general  description  is  employed,  cannot  be  treated  as  hav- 
ing reference  to  any  of  the  specified  vessels ;  and  in  several  instances 
the  dates  conclusively  prove  that  there  could  have  been  no  such  refer- 
ence. Again,  the  claim  for  expenditure  in  respect  of  a  Unite<l  States 
cruiser  dispatched  in  pursuit  of  a  particular  confederate  ship  is  some- 
times prolonged  considerably  beyond  the  date  when  the  capture  or  de- 
struction of  that  ship  must  have  become  known  to  the  commander  of 
the  cruiser,  and  during  a  time,  therefore,  when  he  must  have  been  em- 
l)loye(l  on  other  service.  There  are  cases  again  (such  as  that  of  the  l)e 
Soto')  in  which  it  is  clear  that  a  cruiser  alleged  to  have  been  in 
[138]  (piest  of  a  confederate  ship  must  *have  much  more  thsin  paid  her 
expenses  by  the  prizes  made  by  her  while  nominally  emi)loyed 
on  that  errand. 

The  result  of  a  careful  and,  as  Her  Majesty's  government  believe,  a 
fair  and  just  examination  of  these  claims,  upon  the  data  juesented  by 
the  United  States  themselves,  is  that,  even  were  it  possible  to  hold 
Great  liritaiu  liable  for  all  expenditure  incurred  in  the  "  pursuit"  of  all 
the  confederate  vessels  specified  in  the  United  States  case,  the  amount 
could  not  exceed  !i!l,8.'54,71.">.l)9;  were  the  expenditure  limited  to  the 
Florida,  Alabama,  (leorgia,  and  Shenandoah,  it  could  not  exceed 
)!Jl,509,.'J00.74;  were  it  limited  to  the  Alabama,  it  could  not  exceed 
$1,427,085.0,3  ;  and  these  figures  would  require  considerable  abatement. 
The  amount  claimed  by  the  United  States  on  this  score  is  $7,080,478.70.- 

It  is  needless  to  remind  the  arbitrators  that  claims  of  this  nature  are 
subject  to  the  same  observation  as  has  been  made  with  respect  to  the 
claims  for  piivate  losses.  It  would  be  plainly  unreasonable  to  contend 
that,  if  any  failure  of  duty  could  be  established  against  Great  Britain 
in  respect  of  a  given  vessel,  all  that  may  have  been  expended  by  the 
United  States  in  trying  to  capture  her  must  be  assumed  to  be  charge- 
able against  this  country.  But  the  British  government  takes  exception 
to  this  class  of  claims  altogether.  It  cannot  be  admitted  that  they  are 
l)roperly  to  be  taken  into  account  by  the  arbitrators,  or  that  Great 
Britain  can  fairly  be  charged  at  once  with  the  losses  which  a  belliger- 
ent cruiser  has  inflicted  during  her  whole  career,  and  with  what  the 
United  States  may  think  tit  to  fillege  that  they  spent  in  vainly  endeav- 
oring to  capture  that  cruiser.  Such  demands  are  unheard  of,  and  were 
never  before  suggested,  even  in  those  cases  in  which  the  attempt  has 
been  made  to  obtain  compensation  for  actual  losses.  By  what  test,  it 
may  reasonably  be  asked,  would  it  be  i)ossib';e  to  try  the  propriety  of 
such  an  alleged  expenditure  f  How  are  the  urbitrators  to  judge  whether 
the  ships  said  to  have  been  employed  werr;  ;i,.operly  selected  for  the 
purpose,  sent  to  the  proper  places,  and  furnibiied  with  proper  instruc- 
tions, and  whether  those  instructions  were  executed  with  activity  and 
judgment  ?  On  these  things,  however,  among  others,  the  propriety  of 
the  expenditure  depends.  In  truth,  there  is  but  one  test  possible ;  it 
is  that  of  success  within  a  reasonable  time.  Tried  by  this  test,  the  claim 
must  fail,  even  if  it  were  open  to  no  other  objections. 

Her  Majesty's  government  is  naturally  reluctant  to  criticise  the  man- 
agement of  the  United  States  Nary,  and  desires  to  say  as  little  as  pos- 
sible on  this  point.  But  a  few  briet  remarks  on  it  are  made  necessary 
by  the  claims  of  the  United  States,  and  it  is  diflflcult  to  resist  the  con- 


'  Appendix  to  British  Caae,  vol.  vii,  p. 
■  Ibid.,  vol.  vii.  pp.  63,111. 


r4. 


'"•■?f 


w\ 


isherios, 

[  of  will', 

fj  orders, 
1  ashiiv- 
nstanct's 
icli  refer- 
Ml  States 
is  some- 
re  or  de- 
lander  ot 
been  em- 
[)f  theDe 
3  been  in 
1  paid  her 
employed 

[)elieve,  a 
sented  by 
e  to  hold 
ait"  of  all 
le  amount 
ed  to  the 
ot  exceetl 
ot  exceed 
batement. 
80,478.70.- 
[lature  are 
act  to  the 
;o  contend 
at  Britain 
ed  by  the 
je  charge- 
exception 
t  they  are 
hat  Great 
II  belli  ger- 
what  the 
endeav- 
and  were 
tempt  has 
lat  test,  it 
opriety  of 
;e  whether 
Bd  for  the 
er  instruc- 
tivity  and 
•opriety  of 
ossible;  it 
the  claim 

the  man- 
,tle  as  pos- 

necessary 
,t  the  con- 


COINTER    CASE    OF    (iJlEAT    HKITAIN. 


:J89 


viction  that,  if  well-appointed  vessels  of  competent  speed  and  strength 
liad  been  dispatched  in  the  directions  which  knowledge  and  experience 
would  indicate,  ami  if  favorubUi  opportunities  had  iu)t  been  lost  or 
thrown  .away,  the  list  of  captures  by  confederate  crui.sers  would  have 
been  comparatively  snnill. 

Let  us  take,  as  the  earliest  example,  the  escape  of  the  Sumter  from 
the  ^lississippi.  This  is  described  by  tin;  Secretary  of  the  Navy  in  his 
report  to  Congress,  dated  the  1st  December,  1801,  p.  8: 

Such  of  tlioso  (the  coufertomte)  cniisorH  an  eludtMl  tlio  hlockiulo  aii«l  cn|>tiii'(>  wcro 
Hooii  wrecked,  l)«;u(;be(l,  or  sunk,  with  tho  t'xceptioii  of  oim,  tlio  sttMinicr  SmiittM'.  wliicli, 
by  some  fatality,  was  porinittud  to  pass  tlm  lirooklyn,  then  blofIva«liii>;oiic  of  llic  passos 
ol"tiio  MisHis,si|>|ti,  aiul,  after  a  brief  and  feejjio  eliaso  by  the  latter,  was  allowed  to  pro- 
teed  on  ber  piratical  voya^fo.  An  investigation  of  this  wholo  occnrrenco  was  onlorod 
by  the  Department. 

With  regard  to  the  Alabama,  it  has  been  seen  that  the  Tuscarora, 
being  in  the  United  Kingdom  at  the  time  the  former  surreptitiously  left 
Liverpool,  failed  to  follow  an<l  intercept  her.  This  appeared  to  the 
United  States  minister  in  London  to  show  a  want  of  that  promptitude 
and  judgment  which  ought  to  have  been  evinced  under  the  circum- 
stances, and  he  evidently  believed  it  i)robable  that  the  Tuscarora  would 
bave  succeeded  in  intercepting  her,  had  the  needful  activity  and  dis- 
patch been  used. 

xVgain,  she  was  blockaded  in  the  harbor  of  Port  Koy.al,  Martinique, 
on  the  19th  November,  1802,  and  although  private  signals  from  a  ship 
ill  the  harbor  were  made  to  f'e  United  States  steamer  San  Jacinto,  then 
off  tlie  entrance,  the  Alabama,  on  the  same  evening,  escaped  the  vigi- 
lance of  the  San  Jacinto. 

Again,  she  was  oil'  Galveston  on  the  11th  January,  1803,  and  was  seen 
by  the  ships  of  Commodore  Bell's  squadron  ;  and  the  flashes  of  the  guns, 
while  the  engagement  between  her  and  the  United  States  ship  of  war 
Hatteras  was  taking  place,  were  plaiidj'  visible,  and  the  sound  of  the 
guns  heard.  At  7.30  p.  m.  the  Brooklyn,  the  commodore's  flagship, 
went  in  pursuit,  steering  S.  ^  E.  in  the  direction  of  the  flashes. 
[139]  The  Sciota  was  *seut  out  S.  S.  E.  and  the  Cayuga  S.  S.  W.,  but 
these  vessels  failed  even  to  see  the  Alabama.  The  commodore, 
ill  his  official  dispatch  of  the  12th  January,  1803,  (p.  319  of  the  United 
States  Secretary  of  the  Navy's  report  to  Congress,)  states  that  "  three 
or  four  vessels  like  the  Oneida  thrown  into  the  Yucatan  Channel  imme- 
diately would  probably  intercept  him.  The  gun-boats  are  not  a  match 
for  him  in  force  or  speed."  Had,  therefore,  the  Brooklyn  and  her  con- 
sorts followed  up  the  pursuit  until  the  following  morning,  it  is  probable 
the  Alabama  would  have  been  in  sight,  and,  if  so,  she  might  have  been 
captured.  Captain  Semmes,  in  his  account  of  his  voyage,  makes  the 
following  observation :  "  By  their  account  of  the  course  steered,  they 
could  not  have  failed  to  have  seen  us.'' 

Again,  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  in  his  report  to  Congress,  dated 
7th  December,  1863,  p.  23,  pronounces  the  following  censure  oii  the 
improper  employment  of  the  Vanderbilt : 

lu  derogation  of  these  special  and  explicit  orders,  Acting  Rear-Admiral  Wilkes,  on 
fulling  in  with  the  Vanderbilt,  transferred  his  Hag  to  that  vessel,  and,  attaching  her  to 
his  scpiadrou,  detained  her  in  his  possession  so  long  as  to  defeat  the  object  and  purpose 
of  the  Department.  He  did  not  releivse  her  until  the  13th  June,  when  Commander 
Biddwiu  proceeded  to  carry  out  his  instrnctious,  but  he  was  too  late.  He  arrived  at 
Fernando  Noronha  on  the  4th  of  July,  at  Pernambuco  on  the  6th,  at  Rio  de  Janeiro  on 
the  Wth  ;  thence  he  proceeded,  on  the  2d  August,  to  St.  Helena,  instead  of  going  direct  to 
fhe  Cape  of  Good  Hope.  The  unfortunate  <leteution  of  the  Vanderbilt  wholly  defeated. 
the  plans  of  the  Department  for  the  capture  of  the  Alabama,  Florida,  and  Georgia. 
They,  as  the  Department  anticipated,  arrived  in  those  latitudes  and  visited  those  ports 


m 
I' 


;f  • 


kf 


w 


I  r 


ti    Ul 


390 


TREATY    OF    WASHINfJTON. 


ill  May,  hut  tin?  Viiudcrhilt,  instead  of  iMMiijr  thero  to  receive  tlieiii,  as  tlu;  Dcpaitmeiit 
inteiuled,  was  inipioperly  detained  in  tbo  VVest  Indies  nntii  after  that  period. 

The  Florida,  after  having  beoii  seized  and  tried  at  the  admiralty  foint 
oi  jSTassau  and  subsecinently  released,  }>roceeded  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico, 
ai'd  in  the  middle  of  the  day  of  the  4th  September,  1802,  boldly  i)asse(l 
through  the  blockading  squadron  off  Mobile,  and  ran  safely  into  the 
harbor.' 

For  this  act  of  remissness  on  the  part  of  the  commanding'  officer  of  the 
United  States  blockading  squadron  he  was  dismissed  from  the  United 
States  Navy.  She  remained  specially  blockaded  until  January,  IHtJ.'i, 
when  she  again  succeeded  in  running  through  the  blockading  squadron. 
She  passed  close  to  several  of  the  sliips,  but  was  not  stopped ;  and  one 
of  the  fastest,  which  was  s[)e(nally  charged  with  the  duty  of  watching 
and  following  her,  is  stated  never  even  to  have  slipped  anchor  in  chase. 
Under  such  circumstances,  when  on  two  separate  occasions  she  might 
have  been  captured,  (either  on  the  4th  Se])tember,  1802,  or  loth  tTami- 
ary,  1803,)  but  escaped  unscathed  by  the  ships  of  war  specially  block- 
ading her  from  ingress  as  well  as  egress,  Her  JVIajesty's  government  is 
unable  to  understand  on  what  principle  any  claim  can  be  sustained  for 
losses  occasioned  by  this  ship,  which  up  to  this  date  (the  loth  January, 
1803)  had  not  caj)tured  a  single  vessel  of  the  United  States,  still  less 
for  the  expenses  incurred  in  failing  to  capture  her. 

In  the  course  of  her  subsequent  proceedings  the  Florida  arrived  at 
Brest  on  the  23d  of  August,  1803;  remained  there  refitting  and  repair- 
ing until  February,  18(54,  during  which  i>eriod  she  was  taken  into  a 
government  dock,  and  made  considerable  changes  in  her  crew.  On  the 
17th  of  September  the  United  States  ship  of  war  Ivearsarge  arrived  in 
Brest  lioads,  and  remained  at  anchor  with  her  tires  banked  until  the 
30th  October.  She  again  returned  on  the  27th  November,  on  the  11th 
and  27th  December,  and  the  3d  January,  1804,  no  doubt  with  the  express 
object  of  watching  the  Florida,  which  was  at  anchor  in  the  roadstead, 
nearly;  if  not  quite  ready  for  sea;  and  the  confederate  cruiser  eventu 
ally  sailed  from  Brest  in  charge  of  a  pilot  on  the  evening  of  the  9th 
Februarj'.  The  Kearsaige,  however,  had  disappeared  from  the  coast, 
and  had  not  been  seen  since  the  evening  of  the  3d  of  January ;  but  she 
again  returned  on  the  18tli  February,  when,  as  it  was  to  be  expected, 
the  Florida  had  disappeared  from  the  anchorage. 

Her  Majesty's  government  have  been  unable  to  discover  that  any  ships 
of  war  of  the  United  States  were  ever  specially  sent  in  pursuit  of  tb** 
Georgia  or  Shenandoah ;  although  in  the  remarks  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  United  States  Navy  in  his  report  to  Congress,  above  (pioted,  the 
Georgia  is  named  with  the  Alabama  and  Florida.  Those  three  vessels 
were,  it  appears,  known  to  the  United  States  Naval  Department  to  be 
somewhere  on  the  equator  or  on  the  coast  of  Brazil  •,  and  there,  had  a 
Hying  squadron  been  at  once  sent  in  pursuit,  one  or  mo^-e  of  them,  if 
not  all,  would  probably  have  been  captured.  It  is  to  be  remarked  that, 
during  the  whole  time  the  Alabama  was  at  sea,  she  was  only  met  ou  two 
occasions  by  ships  of  the  United  States  Navy,  until  she  voluntarily 
engaged  and  was  sunk  by  the  Kearsarge,  oft"  (Cherbourg,  on  the 
[140]  19th  June,  1804.  On  the  lirst  *occasion  she  escaped  from  Port 
Koyal,  Martinique,  when  virtually  blockaded  by  the  San  Jacinto 
in  Noveuiber,  1802 ;  on  the  second,  she  engaged  and  sunk  the  Ilattera.H, 
ofll'  ( lal vestcn,  on  the  11th  January,  1803.    Nor  does  it  appear  that  eithoi 


'Appendix  to  the  Case  of  the  United  States,  vol.  vi,  p.  33*2. 


(  Ol  XTKR    CASE    OF    (JKEAT    HKITAIX. 


*};>i 


■^.v,: 


the  Georgia  or  Shenaiuloiili,  daring  their  respective  cruises,  ever  fell  in 
with  a  ship  of  war  of  the  United  States. 

Her  r.Iajesty's  government  cannot  but  observe  tliat,  among  tlie  United 
States  ships  for  wliich  chiinis  are  mad«.',  as  liaving  been  e!ni)loyed  in  the 
pursuit  of  confederate  cruisers,  tliere  are  several  which  would  luive  been 
worse  thnn  useless  for  suiili  a  purpose.  If  the  Onward,  of  874  tons,  ov 
liio,  of  89.">  tons,  converted  merchant-vessels  without  steain-])ower,  which 
are  represented  as  having  been  sent  in  search  of  the  Alabama,  iiad 
fallen  in  with  tiiat  shij),  thi'.y  must  inevitably  hav(!  been  destroyed.  The 
same  observation  applies  to  other  sailing-vessels  of  the  same  chiss,  such 
as  tlie  Gemsbok,  National  (Juard,  and  Slu'ppard  Knapp,  an<l  still  more 
strongly  to  the  George  Mangham,  a  mortar  (sailing)  schooner  of  274 
tons.' 

With  the  large  naval  force  at  the  disi)osal  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  Her  Majesty's  government  cannot  forbear  to  observe  that 
it  appears  extraordinary  that  more  energy  was  not  disidayed  in  i>ursu- 
iiig  and  following  ui>  tlie  few  small  confederate  cruisers  to  which  the 
claims  against  Great  liritain  relate.  The  losses  now  comi)lained  of 
would  have  been  reduced  to  a  minimum  had  etfective  measures  been 
used  to  protect  the  commerce  of  the  United  States  by  the  establishment 
of  one  or  more  flying  srpiadrotis,  with  orders  to  follow  them  anywhere 
and  everywhere,  and  not  confined,  as  x\.dmiral  Wilkes's  flying  squadrou 
was,  to  a  very  restricted  station. 

It  is  clear,  indeed,  from  tl><>  r(»port  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  quoted 
above,  that  he  was  himself  (!onscious  that  the  utmost  efforts  of  the 
United  States  were  not  put  forth  to  pursue  and  capture  these  confed- 
erate vessels.  This  duty  was  deliberately  held  to  be  subordinate  to 
that  of  niaintaining  the  blockade: 

In  iuldition  to  the  low  vessels  sfiitioned  abroad  to  guard  our  national  intoresta,  others 
have  from  tinu;  to  time  bi^en  dispatched  in  pursnit.  of  the  rovers,  all  of  which  \v(<re 
btiilt  in  and  have  fj;one  abroad  from  foreijjn  ])orts  to  prey  npon  our  commerce.  The 
details  of  all  the  measures  which  have  Itecn  adopted  by  the  Department  in  thi.s  view  it 
is  nr)t  necessary  hei'e  to  disclose;  bnt  with  most  of  our  naval  v(!ssels  engaged  in 
enforcing  tiio  blockade,  and  wirhout  a  clew  to  guide  our  independent  cruisers  on  the 
trackless  ocean,  they  have  thus  fir  been  unable  to  encoiuiter  these  semi-piratical  ves- 
sels, wliich  always  seek  to  evade  a  naval  antagonist.  Were  the  probabilities  greater 
than  tlit!y  are,  however,  of  (iucountering  them,  and  were  our  public  naval  vessels  per- 
mitted to  enter  the  ports  of  the  maritime  powers  for  fuel  and  othei  supplies  when  in 
pursuit,  it  would  not  promote  the  interests  of  couunerce  nor  the  welfare  of  the  country 
to  relax  the  blockade  for  that  object. 

The  foregoing  observations  have,  it  will  be  observed,  a  materialbear- 
ing  not  only  on  the  daiuis  for  national  expemliture,  but  on  all  the  claims 
for  compensation  which  are  advanced  by  the  United  Stsites.  It  would 
be  unjust  to  hold  that  a  neutral  nation  is  liable  for  l(»sses  inflicted  iu 
war,  which  reasonable  em»rgy  and  activity  were  not  used  to  prevent,  on 
the  plea  that  the  vessels  which  were  instrumental  in  the  infliction  of  the 
loss  were  procured  from  the  neutral  country,  even  though  it  may  be 
alleged  that  there  was  some  want  of  reasonable  care  on  the  part  of  the 
neutral  government.  The  utmost  period  over  which  a  liability  once 
established  on  the  ground  of  default  could  be  exteiuled  on  any  rational 
principle,  would  be  that  which  must  elapse  before  the  aggrieved  bellig- 
erent would  have,  by  the  use  of  due  diligence  and  proper  meais  on  his 
own  part,  the  opportunity  of  counteracting  the  mischief. 

CLAIM   OF   THIO    UNITED   STATES   FOR    INTEREST. 

On  the  claim  for  interest  which  is  advanced  by  the  United  States,  Her 

'Appendix  to  British  Case,  vol.  vii,  p.  !\i*. 


■  'it   V 

■■■;■  't 


w 


392 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


I  / 


cia.mofth.Lnii.j  Majesty's  government  must  observe  that  it  is,  in  principle, 
stat,^, for N,ter.^,i.    unteiiablc.    Tiie  claims  referred  to  tie  arbitrators  are,  it 


must  not  be  forgotten,  claims  of  the  United  States,  not  of  private  per- 
sons, agaip:st  Great  Britain,  although  a  large  proportion  of  them  may 
represent  losses  alleged  to  have  been  sustained  by  private  persons. 
Intere:it,  on  general  principles  r&cognlzed  in  the  jurisprudence  of  all 
cou'.itries,  and  founded  on  reason,  can  be  claimed  only  (in  the  absence 
of  a  specitic  agreement)  where  a  debtor  is  in  mora  ;  that  is,  where  do 
fault  has  been  made  in  payment  of  a  liquidated  debt  at  the  time  when 

it  ought  by  law  to  have  been  paid,  there  being  no  mora  accqriendi, 
[141]    or  delay  interposed  on  the  part  of  *the  creditor.    It  is  evident 

that  these  conditions  do  not  apply  to  a  case  in  which  a  mass  of 
doubtful  claims,  of  unascertained  amount,  have  been  made  by  one  nation 
against  another,  have  from  time  to  time  been  the  subject  of  negotiation, 
and  are  at  length  reltn/ed  to  arbitrators.  It  is  through  no  fault  of  Her 
Majesty's  governmei.l  that  these  claims  were  not  submitted  to  arbitra- 
tion in  18C7,  or  again  in  1809 ;  and  it  is  not  for  the  United  States,  which 
five  years  ago  relused  to  agree  to  i  reference,  and  three  years  ago  refused 
to  ratify  a  treaty  actually  concluded  for  this  purpose  by  their  represent- 
ative in  England,  to  insist  on  a  delay,  of  which  they  were  themselves 
the  cause,  as  a  ground  for  increasing  their  demands  upon  Great  Britain. 


EECAPITULATION  OF  PRECEDING  REMARKS 

COMPENSATION. 


ON  THE  MEASURE  OF 


To  recapitulate  what  has  been  said  on  this  branch  of  the  subject : 

The  losses  which  may  be  taken  into  account  by  the  arbitrators  are  at 
Re.a,Miuiation  <,i  thc  utuiost  thoso  ouly  which  have  directly  arisen  from  the 
{i7;;;lJ".^,TJ'oivom'  <'apture  or  destruction,  by  one  or  more  of  the  cruisers  enu- 
,.«,suiion.  merated  in  the  Case,  of  ships  or  property  owned  by  the 

United  States  or  by  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  the  extent  of  the 
liability  of  Great  liritain  for  any  such  losses  cannot  exceed  that  propor- 
tion of  them  which  may  be  deemed  justly  attributable  to  some  specitic 
failure  or  failures  of  duty  on  the  part  of  her  government  in  respect  of 
such  cruiser  or  cruisers. 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  arbitrators,  in  deciding  whether  claims  for  com- 
pensation in  respect  of  any  particular  default  are  tenable,  and  on  the 
extent,  if  any,  of  liability  incurred  by  such  default,  to  take  into  account 
not  only  the  loss  incurred,  but  the  greater  or  less  gravity  of  the  default 
itself,  and  all  the  causes  which  may  have  contributed  to  the  loss,  and 
V'iiiticularly  to  consider  wiiether  the  alleged  loss  was  wholly  or  in  part 
due  to  a  want  of  reasonable  activity  and  care  on  the  part  of  the  United 
Statv  >  themselves. 

The  claims  for  money  alleged  to  have  been  expended  in  endeavoring 
to  capture  or  destroy  any  confederate  cruiser  are  not  admissible  together 
with  the  claims  for  losses  intlicted  bj'  such  cruiser. 

The  claims  for  interest  are  not  admissible. 

Should  the  tribunal  award  a  sum  in  gross,  this  sum  ought  to  be  meas- 
ured by  the  extent  of  liability  which  the  tribunal  may  find  t*^  have  been 
incurred  by  Great  Britain  on  account  of  any  failure  or  failures  of  duty 
proved  against  her. 

The  estimates  of  losses,  public  and  private,  presented  by  the  United 
States  ave  so  loose  and  unsatisfactory,  and  so  plaiidy  excessive  in 
amount,  that  they  cannot  be  accepted  even  as  furnishing  fx  prima  facie 
basis  of  calculation.    The  estimates  of  exi>enditure  (were  the  claiuiM  cu 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    GREAT   BRITAIN. 


393 


principle, 
irs  are,  it 
ivate  per- 
hem  may 
}  persons, 
ince  of  all 
le  absen(;e 
where  do 
time  when 
accipieniU, 
is  evident 
a  mass  of 
one  nation 
3gotiation, 
ult  of  Her 
to  arbitra- 
ites,  which 
go  refused 
represent- 
hemselves 
at  Britain. 

ASURE    OF 


iibject : 
tors  are  at 
1  from  the 
iiisers  enu- 
ed  by  the 
tent  of  the 
I  at  propoi- 
ne  specitic 
respect  of 

is  for  com- 

ind  on  the 

to  account 

le  default 

loss,  and 

or  in  part 

he  United 

deavoring 
e  together 


3  be  meas- 
have  been 
es  of  duty 

he  Unit^^d 

cessive  in 

rimaftu-ie 

clai!ns  ou 


that  head  to  be  considered  admissible)  would  likewise  be  found  too 
unsatisfactory  to  serve  a  like  purpose. 

Her  Majesty's  government  is  sensible  that,  should  the  arbitrators  find 
it  necessary  to  approach  this  question,  they  will  i)robably  find  it  one  of 
no  inconsiderable  diflBculty.  The  foregoing  considerations  are  inte'^ded 
to  circumscribe  it,  at  least,  within  Just  and  reasonable  limits,  and,  sub- 
jec'  to  these  considerations,  the  British  government  leaves  it  to  the 
impartial  judgment  of  the  tribunal. 


i^i 


In  concluding  this  Counter  Case  Her  Britannic  Majesty's  government 
thinks  it  right  to  advert,  in  a  few  words,  to  considerations  which  invest 
this  controversy  with  an  importance  not,  i)erhaj)S,  so  great  as  is  ascribed 
to  it  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States,  but  sufficient  to  make  it  a  matter 
of  profound  general  interest.  The  discussion  turns  on  the  duties  and 
responsibilities  of  neutrals;  and  the  held  of  discussion  embraces  ques- 
tions of  principle,  questions  of  fact,  and  questions  of  peculiar  moment 
respecting  the  application  of  principles  to  facts.  The  United  States 
have  asked  the  sanction  of  the  arbitrators  to  co'i:Cvi»tions  of  neutral 
duty,  and  still  more  of  neutral  liabilities,  which,  to  the  British  govern- 
uiouc,  appear  to  be  fraught  with  grave  consequences,  and  to  demand 
\ri  ittention.  These  views,  theoretically  stated  in  an  earlier  part 
' !  .  merican  Case,  are  embo<lied  in  a  practical  shape  by  the  charges 
advanced  against  Great  Britain  ;  and  they  assume  a  still  more  formida- 
ble aspect  when  they  are  invoked  to  support  large  claims  for  pecuniary 
reparation.  For  the  first  time  in  history,  as  the  British  government 
believes,  it  has  been  seriously  insisted  that  every  act  or  omission,  how- 
ever doubtful  or  insignificant,  on  the  part  of  a  neutral  government  or 
its  officers,  which  could  be  construed  by  a  belligerent  into  a  devia*^ion 
from  the  line  tracetl  out  for  neutrals  by  international  law  and  pra«'cice, 
may  be  made  the  foundation  for  pecuniary  demands  upon  the  neutral 

power,  such  as  are  now  urged  against  Great  Britain.     If  this  be 
[142]    so,  it  becomes  a  matter  of  the  highest  moment  that  the  rules 

binding  on  neutrals  should  be  simple  and  few.  But  what,  accord- 
ing to  the  Case  of  the  United  States,  must  be  the  ordinary  situation  of 
a  neutral  in  a  ihaiitime  war  t  It  must  be  a  situation  of  perpetual  and  un- 
remitting an?  •  f  ^  fcurrounded  by  dangers,  harassed  by  a  crowd  of  new 
obligations  '  :ikiM  .rn  in  peace,  which  nothing  short  of  sleepless  vigi- 
lance ^>;"  ar.  ;iv,  ^vllile  any  lapse  in  the  performance  of  them,  on  the 
part  even  of  :;  <i?'>i  ilinate  officer,  is  to  be  visited  with  heavy  national 
Itenalties.  T'e  !>»»  sactions  of  private  commerce  must  be  made  the 
object  of  min.^  t  \  ('lisition  and  incessant  supervision  ;  })ri^  ate  persons, 
siisj  ected  of  being  agents  of  either  belligerent,  must  be  tracked,  when 
within  the  neutral  country,  by  spies  and  inforn)«'rs  ;  trade  with  the  bel- 
ligerent nations  must  be  fettered  by  restraints  aMd  prohibitions;  the 
bospitalities  ordinarily  extended  to  be-ligerent  shipn  in  ports  of  the 
neutral  must  be  guarded  with  precautions,  for  the  strict  enforcement  of 
which  no  honesty  or  zeal  on  the  part  of  the  local  authorities  can  afford 
an  ade<  (aV^  guarantee.  Laws  and  regulations  einicted  by  the  neutral 
nation  .  •"  a  view  to  its  own  protection,  far  from  being  a  means  of 
security,  l-«  <  ^  j  fj  aiklitional  source  of  danger,  when  thej'  are  liable 
to  be  consti;..  1  as  acts  by  which  the  neutral  establishes  as  against  him- 
self, by  admission  or  otherwise,  a  new  class  of  international  obligations. 
Is  this  picture  overdrawn  ?  It  can  hardly  be  thought  so,  when  we  pass 
in  review  the  various  articles  of  the  long  indictment  preferred  by  the 


..       i,  i 


t:i 


w 


. 


304 


TREATY    OF    \VASHIN(iTO\. 


Unitftd  States  affaiii.st  Great  Britain,  anil  the  statements  and  argnnieiits 
which  have  been  used  in  sui)p()rt  of  them. 

It  is  evident  that,  if  these  principles  were  to  be  generally  adoi)to(l. 
the  only  prudent  course  for  neutral  powers  would  be  to  enact  no  re;;u- 
lations,  repeal  all  laws  which  could  be  interpreted  as  admissions  a^rainst 
themselves,  exclude  all  bellij^erent  vessels  of  war  from  their  ports,  pro 
hibit  all  traflic  with  belligerent  nations.  13ut  even  this  would  not  \ui 
enough,  since  it  is  dillicult,  perhaps  impossible,  for  maritime  states,  by 
any  legislative  or  administrative  precautions,  to  isolate  themselves  ami 
their  subjects  completely  from  all  contact  with  a  maritime  war.  States, 
especially  the  less  i)owerful,  would  be  tempted  to  abandon  a  position  so 
jirecarious,  and  menaced  by  such  heavy  penalties;  to  choose,  in  pretVr- 
ence,  the  certain  evils  of  war  itself;  and  to  seek  protection  in  an  alliance 
with  one  belligerent  or  the  other. 

The  British  government  is  convinced  that  the  arbitrators  will  not 
give  any  sanction  to  views  of  neutral  obligation,  to  which  not  even  the 
authority  of  this  tiibunal  could  secuie  the  general  assent  of  neutral 
powers.  Xay,  the  British  government  is  persuaded  that  these  extreme 
views,  though,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  they  have  been  insisted  on  in 
the  Caseo  f  the  United  Stat:  s,  are  not  thoroughly  realized,  and  would 
never,  in  practice,  be  accept.  .  '  ^linding  bj-  the  United  States  them 
.selves. 

The  conce|)tions  of  neutral  dui,;,  vhich  have  been  stated  to  the  arbi- 
trators on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  are  those  on  which  she  has  con 
.stantly  acted,  and  is  i>repared  to  act  in  future,  and  which  she  believes 
to  be  upheld  by  reason,  by  authority,  and  by  the  general  consent  of 
nations.  It  is  the  right  of  a  state  which  remains  at  peace  while  others 
are  at  war,  that  its  relations  with  foreign  countries  and  the  duties  it 
owes  to  them  as  a  member  of  the  society  of  nations,  should,  as  far  as  is 
possible,  continue  to  subsist  unaltered  by  discords  from  which  it  stands 
aloof,  and  wherein  it  has  no  share.  Impartiality  in  act;  the  exercise  ot 
reasonable  care  to  prevent  itself  from  being  made,  even  against  its  will, 
a  virtual  participant  in  the  war,  while  claiming  the  advantages  and  im- 
munities of  peace;  this  is  all  that  the  neutral  is  bound  to  give,  or  the 
belligerent  entitled  to  require.  Great  Britain  has  laid  before  the  arbi- 
trators, with  a  fullness  and  minuteness  of  detail  rendered  necessary  by 
the  long  train  of  accu.satious  she  has  h  ul  to  meet,  the  acts  of  her  gov 
eminent  and  of  its  othcera,  and  every  ascertained  fact  and  circumstance 
which  can  be  material  to  a  decision ;  and  she  leaves  with  couttdeuce  to 
their  judgment,  and  to  that  of  the  world,  the  question  whether  her  obli 
gations  as  a  neutral  were  not  fairly  discharged  toward  the  United 
States  during  the  civil  war. 

Finally,  Her  Britannic  Majesty's  government  desires  to  express  its 
earnest  hope,  in  which  it  is  assured  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  will  cordially  share,  that  the  frank  and  open  statement  of  tacts 
as  they  actually  occurred,  may  ettectually  remove  every  misunderstand- 
ing between  nations  allied  by  innumerable  ties  to  one  another. 


.  T'   nify  ? 


t^H 


U-M 


*\  X  X  K  X     (A.) 


NOTE  OX  THE  QUESTION  UEFEURED  TO  AT  PAlil 


The  subjoined  citations  bearing  on  the  «|uestion  referred  to  in  paj-e  12 
iire  taken,  as  will  be  seen,  with  few  excieptions,  from  works 
jablished  before  the  question  in  controversy  arose: 

Ci'liii-li\  an  coiitrairo  Ml'sso  Ics  devoirs  df  la  nciitralitt'^  ipii,  .sans  cnffaj^ttMiieiit.s 
iiiit(5ri('nrs,  peniict  a  I'mic  diss  i»nis,sanct's  Itellij^i^rantes  ]*'  paHsajjfe  on  la.  levoc  dt?  recruos, 
111  Ics  ddfoiidant  a  Tautre,  on  Ijieii  qui  tcdcTo  sur  son  tenitoiio  les  proiiaiatifs  iiiilitaires 
(k'  rniio  des  iiiii»^.s:inc<'s  Itflliffdrantes  vi\  lui  ju'iniettant  trocciiper  tflle  forteresse,  on 
soutlVant  des  l■ass(^nllilt'nl»M^ts  niilitairi^s,  d(!S  arniL'inonfs  cix  ('ourso,  &<;. ;  ct  (i'cst  on  vain 
(lu'il  .sc  parorait  dn  ])rotext»',  d'otro  piot  a  en  faiie  antant  ou  favi^nr  de  la  jtaitie  adverse. 
— I  (Uflc/cH.s,  rrerix  dn  droit  den  genu  moderne  de  V Europe,  Verge's  edition,  Iriod,  book  viii, 
iliiii».  vii.) 

El  annar  bju[ueH  i)ara  »d  servieio  de  la  giievra,  anmentar  sn.s  fnerzas,  aderezarlos, 
prejiarar  expediei()nes  host i les,  .son  aetos  ilej^itinios  en  territorio  niMitral,  y  las  cai>turas 
>ubsin;iiientes  a  ellos  .se  iniran  eonio  vieiosas  en  el  foro  de  la  jiotencia  nentral  otendida, 
i|iu'  tieue  derecho  ])ara  restitnir  la  presa  a  los  ])riinitivos  propietarios,  si  a  sns  pnertos 
t'lure  coudncida.  *  »  #  Xa<la  .se  opone  a  (pie  los  belijjerantes  apresten  naves  de 
coiuercio  en  los  pnertos  nentrales,  las  tripnlen  y  snrtan  de  tod'o  lo  necesario  ;  lo  cnal  se 
fxtiende  ii  las  naves  qnepneden  destinarse  indistintainente  al  eoniereio  ('»  a  lagnerra. — 
Vando,  Elementos  del  derevho  inlvrnadonal ,  ^  li)'2,  Madrid,  18.V2.) 

Nacli  der  dritteii  Kegel  des  vorigen  I'aragraidien  dart"  der  nentrale  Staat  einer  krieg- 
fiibrenden  Partei  weder  Mannsebaften  noeli  aneii  Scbitfe  tlir  ibre  Kriegsnnternebnnin- 
^'eii  zur  Disposition  stellen,  aneb  keineW..*'".;  nliitze  oder  .Sebitt'sstationen  tiir  f'eindliebe 
rnternebinnngen  einriiiunen,  nocb  endlicb  (n  bhnittel  zum  Fortbetriebo  de.s  Krieges 
zntiiessen  lassen.  Fiir  erlanbt  iiielt  man  «'bedeii  zwar  die  Verinietbnng  un<l  gewisser- 
luassen  Seelenverkiliiferei  von  Trnppen  an  oinen  kriegtlibrenden  Tlieil,  selltst  obne 
eineii  deni  Kriege  voransgegangenen  Vertrag ;  tbeils  niaeben  jedoeb  die  constitutio- 
iicllen  Kecbte  der  Volker  dergleieben  bent  zn  Tage  nninoglieb  ;  tbeils  \vi'  I  ancb,  wenn 
IS  iioeh  vorkiiiue,  «iue  Kriegspartei  dnreh  kein  Herkoinnien  gebindert.  ..inen  solcben 
Truppenlieferanten  nacb  ibreni  pcditisclien  Intere.s.se  zn  be  bandeln.  Ebdn  so  war  es  eine 
voriuals  .sehr  gewobnliche  Meinnug,  ein  nentraler  Staat  diirfe  einer  kriegfiibreuden 
Miiclit  gestatten,  seiu  (Jebiet  tlir  ihr  Angrifls-  nnd  Vertlieitlignngssystem  zum  Sebaden 
iks  Gegners  vorilbergebend  zii  benntzen,  falls  man  dieseni  sell)staneb  das  Niindielie  zn 
trlauben  bereit  wiire,  z.  B.  eineu  Dnrchzug  von  Trnppen  oder  <lie  Dnrcbflibrung  von 
St'birt'en  dnrcb  das  neutralo  Wa.s8ergebiet,  t'erner  die  Anliiint'nng  von  Magazinen,  Aus- 
riistung  von  Trnppen,  Kriegsscbitt'eti  und  Capern ;  ailein  es  lassen  sieb  dergleieben 
Vergiinstignngen  mit  dem  Wesen  stronger  Neutralitiit  niebt  vereinbaren.  Denii  es  wird 
iliuiu  immer  eiu  acineller  Gewinn  fiir  den  Begiinstigteii  in  seinen  Unternobmnngen 
lii'gt'H.  nnd  die  IJmstiindo  werden  selten  so  geartct  sein,  dass  anssolcben  Gestattungen 
kt'iu  wirkliehes  Priijndiz  tiir  die  andore  Partei  entsteben  kiiiinte;  moistens  wird  die 
Lage  eines  nentralen  Landes  fiir  die  eine  Kriegspartei  giinstiger  sein  als  tiir  die 
aiulere,  demnacb  ilire  Benutznng  von  Seiten  der  oinen  wirkliebe  Fiirdernng  ibrer  feind- 
liclieii  Zwecke  gegen  die  andere  Partei.  Nnr  bei  volligor  UnvertiinglicbKeit  der  Ver- 
liiiltiiinse  nnd  ZnMtiinde  wiirde  daber  d<a-  Nentrale  Zngestiindni.sse  dor  angegebenen  Art 
iiiachen  diirfeu;  nnter  alien  Umstiinden  aber  fordert  es  der  gnte  (ilanbe  nnd  die 
Kliiglieit,  sieb  mit  dem  anderen  Theile  liieriiber  zii  vorstiindigen.        »  »  » 

Hureb  das  Vorstebende  siiid  mit  Beriieksiebtignngdor  wicbtigsten  Fiille  die  engsten 
'irenzen  gezogou,  innerbalb  deren  sieb  die  Unparteiliebkeit  der  nentralen  Staatsgewal- 
tiii  lialten  muss.  Was  nun  diese  zn  tbnn  niebt  berecbtigt  siinl,  darf  ira  AUgeineinon 
audi  ibren  tJutertbaneu  niebt  gestattet  werden.  Inzwiseben  kann  <Iadurch  die  Freiheit 
iliT  Einzelnen  niebt  so  viillig  besebriinkt  werden,  als  es  tiir  die  Staatsgewult  selbst, 
uiitliiii  audi  fiir  die  Masse  der  Nation,  Ciesetz  der  Neutralitiit  i.st.  Es  kauii  daher  keine 
Rt'gierung,  den  Fall  ansdriieklicbcr  Vertragsverbindlicbkeit  ausgenommen,  dafiir 
veiiiiitwortlicb  gemaidit  werden,  wenn  oinzelne  ibrer  Untertbaneii  froiwillig  in  der 
ciniii  oder  anderen  VVeise  an  einem  trenulon  Kriege  Tlieil  nebmeu,  wenn  sie  sieb  mit 


,■-:  ,.A  : 


m 


« 


396 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


einer  Kriegspftrtei  in  Liefenuiefs-  und  Da  •lehngeschiifte  einlassen,  oder  in  die  Tnip- 
penreihen  derselben  eintreteii,  oiiieni  krirgerischen  Drange  oder  besonderen  nioraii- 
Hcbeu  Interessen  an  dor  Saclie  dieser  Parlei  uacbgehend.  Ini  iiUHsersten  Falle  wiinUu 
bier  uur  di«  GriuidHiitze  von  d»!r  Auswandernng  der  Uutertbanen  zur  Anwendimj; 
konuuen.  Sollte  froilicb  die  TlnMhiabnie  der  Untertbaneu  eiue  niasHeubafte  werdtMi, 
dadurcb  die  Aufuierksanikeit  und  Bedenklicbkeit  der  Gegeupartei  erregeu,  deuniach 
Ktpressalieu  derselben  befiircbteu  lassen  :  so  wird  es  von  dera  politiscben  P^rniesHtii 
der  betbeiligteu  Staatsgewalt  abbiingen,  ob  und  wie  weit  Hie  dagegen  einscbreiteii 

wolle,  jedoch  ulcbt  ana  Ptlicbt  gegeu  den  kriegfiibrenden  Tbeil,  soudern  ledifr- 
[144]     licb  au8  •Riicksicbt  anf  das  eigene  Staatswobl.     Als  Verletzung  der  Neutrali- 

ttit8])tlicbt  dart'nacb  neuereni  Brancb  die  Erlanbniss  zur  Annabnie  von  Ciiiitr- 
briefen  und  Ansriistnng  von  Caperscbitt'eu  angeseben  werden. — {Heffter  •  Das  europiiixche 
Vijlh:rrecht  der  Gegenwart,  ^^  147, 14d,  3d  edition,  Berlin,  Idoo.) 

The  foregoing  passages  relate  to  hostile  expeditions  organized  within 
and  dispatched  from  the  neutral  country.  Heffter,  where  he  speaks  of 
the  act  of  furnishing  vessels  constructed  for  war  to  a  belligerent,  intro- 
duces it  under  the  head  of  contraband : 

Da  sieb  nentrale  Staaten  und  deren  Untertbaneu  durcli  nninittelbare  Gewiibniiig 
einer  Kriegsbilfe  fur  den  einen  Tbeil  gegen  den  anderen  einer  Verletzung  der  Neiitra- 
litiit  sebnldig  niacben,  so  ist  letzterer  nnstreitig  berecbtigt,  auf  otteueni  Kriegsf'tlde 
dagegen  einzuscbreiten  und  die  nnbefngten  Handlnngeu  als  feiudselige  zu  alnideu. 
Plierunter  tlillt  niit  Beistinnuung  der  Praxis  : 

«.  Die  freiwillige  Zutlibrung  von  Mannscbaften  fiir  den  Land-  und  Seekrieg  ; 

b.  Die  freiwillige  Zufiibrung  von  Kriegs-  und  Transportscbiffen  ; 

c.  Die  freiwillige  Beforderung  von  Depescbeu  an  oder  fur  eiueu  Kriegfiibrenden. 

'  In  Fiillen  dieser  Art,  wofern  sie  wirklicb  constatirt  werden,  wird  nicbt  alleiu  (lit; 
Wegnabnie,  sondern  aucb  die  Aneignung  des  Transportmittels,  j»  sogar  dor  iibrigeii 
Ladung  gegen  den  von  deni  verboteneu  Zwecke  der  Reise  unterricbteten  neutraleii 
Eigentbiinier  zuliissig  gebalien,  obwobl  nicbt  innner  niit  gleicber  Strenge  gebandbabt. 
In  der  Tliat  liegt  darin  eine  Selbstbilfe,  welcber  der  Nentrale  unterworfen  werden  daif, 
der  sieb  zuni  Complicen  oder  gebeimeu  Gebilfen  des  Feindes  geinacbt  bat. — (§  157  b.) 

The  foregoing  passage  has  been  extracted  in  the  Case  of  the  United 
States  (p.  19G)  from  a  French  translation  of  Heffter's  work,  in  which  it 
will  be  observed  that  a  change  of  expression  is  introduced.  The  sub- 
.'^titnted  words  are : 

b.  La  construction  dans  les  ports  neutres  de  .aisseaux  de  guerre  ou  de  commerce  pour 
le  compte  de  I'enuemi,  dh  leur  sortie. 

Heffter  himself,  in  his  fifth  edition,  published  in  1867,  retains  the  words 
he  had  previously  used,  while  he  recasts  the  remainder  of  his  paragraph., 
entitling  it  "Analoge  Fiille  der  Kriegscontrabande,"  omitting  the  open- 
ing sentence,  and  merely  stating  that  the  three  classes  of  acts  specified 
fall  under  the  hesid  of  contraband  "  improper,"  ("  uneigentliche  Kriegs- 
contrabande.") 

Heffter  here  couples  the  act  of  furnishing  a  vessel  of  war  to  a  bellig- 
erent with  that  of  furnishing  him  with  a  transport,  and  also  with  that 
of  transporting  troops  for  a  belligerent  from  i)lace  to  place.  That  these 
are  not  acts  which  the  neutral  government  is  under  any  obligation  to 
prevent  has  been  constantly  held  by  the  United  States. 

The  doctrine  thus  enunciated  by  Heff'ter  is  that  of  all  previous  writers 
of  authority. 

Ships  of  war,  exported  from  a  neutral  territory  for  the  use  of  a  bellig- 
erent, had  always  been  ranked  among  articles  contraband  of  ^^ar,  witli- 
out  any  indication  of  a  difference,  in  the  view  of  international  law,  be- 
tween them  and  other  articles  of  direct  use  in  war. 

In  the  treaty  of  December  21,  IGGl,  between  Charles  H  of  England 
and  Charles  Xi  of  Sweden,  which  is  stated  by  Azuni  {Systeme  uniceml, 
&c.,  tom.  ii,  art.  iv,  §  16,  page  121,  note)  to  have  "  servi  de  regie  a  un 
grand  uombre  d'autres  post^rieures,"  it  is  provided,  "  Ne  merces  ulliB 
vocatfp  contrabanda^,  et  specialiter"  (inter  alia)  "  nates  heUicce,  et praxi- 
diari(v  hostibus  suppeditanda?,  devehautur  ad  alterius  hostes  sine  peri- 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


397 


o 


"m^ 


(inmerce  \wnv 


Oils  writers 


culo,  si  ab  altero  confa?deratoruni  deprebendautiir,  quod  prjiHlie  cedant 
absque  spe  restitutionis." 

In  tlie  convention  of  London  (July  25,  1803)  between  Great  Britain 
and  Sweden,  certain  additions  were  made  to  the  list  of  articles  contra- 
band of  war  enumerated  in  the  previous  convention  of  1801  between 
Great  Britain  and  Kussia,  among  which  additions  were  "  ships  of  war." 

Kutherforth,  in  his  "  Institutes,"  1756,  chapter  xix,  (on  contraband  of 
war,)  wrote :  "  AVheu  a  war  is  carried  on  b}'  sea  as  well  as  by  land,  not 
only  ships  of  tear  nhich  are  already  huilt,  but  the  materials  for  building 
or  repairing  of  ships,  will  come  under  the  notion  of  '.  arlike  stores.'' 

Hilbner,  (an  author  who  has  been  referred  to  in  the  Case  of  the  United 
States  as  having  given  the  best  definition  of  neutrality,)  in  enumerating 
the  "  cas  oil  les  batiments  neutres  sont  saisissables,"  ranged  under  this 
bead  vessels  built  in  a  neutral  port  to  the  order  of  a  belligerent : 
"Qnand  ce  sont  des  navires  de  guerre  construits  dans  un  port  ueutre 
pour  le  compte  ou  pour  le  service  des  parties  belligerantes."  {Saisie  des 
batiments  neutres,  vol.  i,  chap,  vi,  §  5.)  He  classes  this  case  with  the 
transport  of  contraband  and  with  breaches  of  blockade. 

Martens  {Precis  du  droit  des  gens,  &c.,  lib.  8,  chap,  vii,  §  318)  also 
enumerates,  among  contraband  articles,  ships  of  war. 

Galiani,  (according  to  Azuui,  vol.  ii,  art.  v,  "  J)e  la  contrehande  de 
linen  e,'"  §  2,  page  143  :) 

Apri'S  avoir  expose  les  dittoreiitos  doctrines  des  publicistcs,  en  ooinraenfant  rtepnis 
Grot  ins  ju8«ni':\  Lanipredi,  sur  I'indiiation  qn'ils  ont  donu<^e  des  niarcliandises  dites  de 
contrebaude,  tinit  par  dire  qn'apres  avoir  niontrd  par  los  Inniieres  du  bon  sens  et  de 
la  niisou  naturelle,  qnelles  sunt  les  jnstes  bornes  des  classes  de  niarcliandises  qn'on  pent 
ciMiipter  entre  celles  de  contrebande  de  jjnerre  ;  il  ajonte  en  prenve  <iue  ee  sont  en  effet, 
h  pen  de  dil}'«Srence  pres,  celles  dt^terniinees  par  presqiie  tons  les  trait«?s  de  I'Eiirope.  II 
loii'.pte  ensnitc  les  {reiires  ([ui,  nniverselleinent  et  de  tout  temps,  ont  ^t^  regard^s  coninie 
lontrebande  de  guerre  ;  i!  passe  de  la  a  ceux  (jui  en  ont  ton  jours  cte  exclus;  et,  enlin,  sa 
iioisienie  classe  conipreud  les  genres  sur  les<nu'ls  la  question  est  restee  iuddcise.  II 
lange  dans  la  lU'eniiere  classe  les  honinies,  les  chevaux,  les  arnies  ddfensives  et  oti'ensives 
ik'  toute  espece,  et  lea  vaintiaitx  rfe  ijiwnr. 

Tetens  {Considerations  sur  les  droits  reciproques,  &c.,  1805,  sec.  3,  Nos. 
3  and  ■!,  on  contraband  of  war)  enumerates  ships  of  war  among  articles 
wliich  are,  according  to  his  classification,  contraband  of  the  first  order. 

Piantanida  {Delia  (jiurispruden^a  maritima,  180G-'8,  torn,  iii,  pp.  41,  48, 
02,  on  prizes)  among  lawful  captures  enumerates  that  of  neutral  vessels, 
•if  armed  for  war." 

Professor  Lampredi,  of  Pisa,  has  always  been  justly  regarded  with 
respect  as  a  learned  and  impartial  writer.  The  main  argument  of  his 
work  on  neutral  commerce,  which  he  wrote  chietly  in  refutation  of  some 
criticisms  of  the  Abbe  Galiani  on  a  former  treatise,  is  to  vindicate  the 
Sene)  ^  right  of  neutrals  to  carry  on  their  trade,  in  time  of  war,  in  the 
same  manner  as  during  peace,  i)rovided  they  do  so  impartially.  And 
be  asserts  this  right,  within  the  neutral  territory  itself,  to  be  abso- 
lute. 
■U5]  *Iu  part  i,  chap.  3,  p.  32,  (Peuchet's  translation,  Paris,  1802,) 
he  says: 

Lorsqn'nne  fois  Ton  a  dtabli  la  seulo  loi  que  lea  penples  neutres  doivent  obser- 
ver pendant  la  guerre,  il  devieut  inutile  de  demander  qnelles  doivent  etre  les 
Hinites du  commerce  (|u'ils  font  en  consc^quence  de  lenr  uentralitd,  parce  qu'on  pent 
I'^poiidre  qu'il  u'en  doit  avoir  aucune,  et  qn'ils  peuveiit  le  faire  de  la  nieme  mani^re 
||u'ils  le  taisaient  en  temps  de  paix,  observant  sonlement  une  oxacte  impartialit*^  pen- 
'liint  tout  le  temps  de  la  guerre.  //  n\if  aitra  done  aucune  eitpece  de  marchaiidixes  qu'Us  tu- 
imiKi<tii1  vciidre  et  porter  ai  x  helligvrunn,  et  Von  ne  pourra  pan  les  empirher  de  leiir  vetidrc  on 
'"ii<r  (ten  uavirex,  ])ourvu  qn'ils  ne  refusent  point  h  I'uu  ce  qn'ils  aceordeut  s\  I'autre. 
"I'vaiit  et  pouvant  snivre  Icgitimement  lenr  commerce  comme  en  temps  de  paix,  U  n« 
'li'it  y  avoir  aucune  distinction  de  murcliandises,  d'argeut,  d'armes  et  d'autres  muui- 


) 


.  1 


I- 


;■* 


398 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


tionn  <le  giierro  ;  la  veiit.e  ct  lo  transport  (1«  ces  divers  oltjetH  dans  les  places  des  l)elli;;(;. 
rans  doiveiit  «''tre  peiniis,  et  no  point  porter  attuintu  a  la  noiitralito,  puiirvu  (in'il  u'\ 
ait  ni  favenr,  ni  2»rdtii^rencu,  ni  esprit  du  parti. 

In  chapter  iv,  page  40,  he  says : 

Si  d'ailli'urH  rintordiction  dii  coniinerce  des  objets  do  eontrebando  <5tait  uno  Idi 
natnrelle  de  la  ueutralit<^,  chacnn  voit  ipio  les  peuploB  en  paix  qui  font  co  coninnMci 
poiirraient  fitre  rej;ard«Ss  coninie  ennouiiH,  et  que  la  khuitb  werait  antorisi^e  contre  eux  ; 
CO  (\m  n'est  jamais  arrivd  et  no  sc!  fait  i)oint  non  plus  do  uotro  touis  ;  preuve  evidtJiiti' 
ijue  la  violence  faite  il  la  liberte  du  connnerco  »les  neutres,  en  tenis  de  jjuerre,  a  lieu  i-t 
He  tolere  resi)ectivenient  des  deux  cAtes,  parce  (|U(^  I'ou  eu  est  ainsi  tacitonient  convemi 
et  non  parce  (jne  lo  droit  uatnrel  le  prescrit  ainsi.    . 

In  chapter  v,  page  r)7,lie  treats  the  question  whether  neutrals  may  sell 
every  kind  of  nu'nihandise  within  the  neutral  territory  to  a  belligerent, 
as  one  which  no  .jurist  anterior  to  (iraliani  had  ever  thought  of  bringin^i 
into  cnntrover.sy  ;  all  tiieir  discussions  being  eonfine<l  to  the  carriatje  of 
contraband  to  the  enemy  : 

II  resulto  do  toutes  les  autoritos  que  nous  voiuuis  ih'  rapi)ortor,  (jue  la  doctrine  i|iif 
U(U18  exi»()Sons  n'a  etc  niiso  en  douto  par  junsonne,  et  (|u'eile  a  eto  rejjardee  par  tons 
les  imblieistes  eoiinno  ]>acili<iue,  et  nuiieuieiit  contraire  an  devoir  do  la  neutraliti-. 
Neannioins  I'AUbe  (Jaliani  a  trouve  eette  doctrine  etraufjo  et  fausse  ;  et  lUmundant  ni  mi 
narire  couxtniit  ct  armi'  eu  jjiierre  duiin  iin  port  tieiitre  nemit  repute  marehandiHe  de  aniln- 
baiide  ni  on  /'»/  mettait  eu  rente,  il  dit  <pCon  derrait  le  ref/nrder  ainsi.  Knsuite  il  nous  iittri- 
bue  d'avoir  les  premiers  etaldi  que  les  neutres  no  peuvent  i)as  exporter  des  niarciiiiii- 
•lises  de  eontn^iande  a  renn<'mi,  nuns  (ju'ils  peuvent  les  v(;ndre  surleur  jjropre  tcni- 
toire  a  ceux  qui  se  jueseutent,  iiourvu  <|ue  ee  connnerco  soit  fait  avec  imi»artialitr,  ci 
Bans  nu)ntrer  plus  de  favour  a  I'un  (ju'a  I'autro  des  bellifjerans.  Nous  no  preteinions 
pas  nous  attribuer  co  (pii  ne  nous  api)artient  i)as.  La  doctrine  que  nous  venous  d'cx- 
posor,  et  <|u'il  apjiidle  inouie,  a  etc  suivie,  an  moins  implicitemeiit,  par  tons  les  autcius 
que  nous  venous  de  citer,  puis([u'ils  ne  parlent  uui(|uement  que  du  transport  des  i:iai- 
diandises  a  rennemi,  et.jauuiis  de  la  vente  (|uo  Ton  pent  en  faire  sur  son  propre  teni- 
toire.     11  y  a  plus  :  ([uehiues-uus  out  enseiffut^  explicitement  la  ui«!me  doctrine. 

He  then  cites  Wolf,  and  the  following  passage  from  Vattel ; 

I'romierement,  tout  ce  qu'une  nation  fait  en  usant  des  scs  droits,  et  uniquemtnit  en 
vue  de  son  propre  bien,  sans  partialite,  sans  dessein  de  favoriser  uno  puissance  tui 
prejudice  d'une  autre,  tout  cela,  dis-je,  ne  pent,  en  gc^neral,  etro  re{^ar<l(^  couune  con- 
traire a  la  neutralite,  et  no  devient  tel  que  dans  ces  occasions  particulieres  oil  il  iic 
pent  avoir  lieu  sans  faire  tort  a  I'une  des  jtarties,  qui  a  alors  nil  droit  particulier  de  s'y 
ojiposcr.  Disons  encore,  d'apres  les  memes  jirincipes,  quo  si  line  nation  fait  'Mmmcm 
d'armes,  de  bois  de  construction,  de  rt^isseaux,  de  munitions  do  guerre,  ./t'  ne  ^xn'x  trourcr 
maurais  <ju^elle  rende  de  tout  cela  a  nion  ennemi,  pourvu  (pi'elle  no  se  refuse  pas  <le  in'tn 
veudre  aussi  a  un  jtrix  raisoniuil)le.  Elle  exerce  son  trafic  sans  dessein  de  me  nnirc 
et  en  le  continuant  coiunie  si  Je  n'avais  point  de  guerre  elle  no  uio  donne  aucuu  juste 
suj(4  do  plaiute. 

Pursuing  the  same  subject,  in  chapter  vi,  page  05,  Lampredi  says: 

Si  CJaliani  s'etait  donn<^  la  ptuue  d'examiner  ainsi  attentivement  la  ([uestion,  et  tii' 
la  rapproclier  des  ])rincipes  (jue  nous  venons  do  dovolopper,  il  se  serait  aisdnient  apervu 
que  la  ditWculte  qu'il  (51evo,  relativeniont  a  la  vente  des  marcbandises  do  contrebandc, 
^•tait  absunlede  droit  et  de  fait,  parce  qu'il  auraitsonti  que  s'il  estpermisaux  nentres, 
en  vertu  du  droit  natnrel,  do  transporter  aux  bolligc^rants  quelque  esp^(!e  do  marchaii- 
ilise  que  ce  soit,  plus  ils  doivout,  a  bien  plus  forte  raisou,  etre  autorisds  a  les  veudru 
sur  leur  propre  torritoire. 

lu  chapter  vii,  page  72,  he  says  : 

Le  caract^ro  de  contrebande  ne  vient  done  pas  aux  marcbandises,  de  I'usagc  qu'oii 
pent  eu  ftxire  dans  la  guen-e,  niais  do  toute  autre  source.  Aussi  longtenis  qu'elles  soiit 
sur  le  territoire  neutre,  elles  ne  dift'fcrent  pas  des  autres  marcbandises ;  elles  s'y  veii- 
dent  et  s'y  acbiiteut  do  la  mfime  mauiere  et  sans  aucune  diffdrence.  Deux  circonstaii- 
ces  font  prendre  h  ces  marcbandises  le  caractere  de  controbande :  1,  qu'elles  soieiit 
passecs  si  la  puissance  de  I'ennemi,  ou  h  moins  destinies  h  y  passer ;  2,  qu'elles  soient 
scties  dn  territoire  neutre.  Alors  elles  devieuuent  cboses  hostiles,  res  hostiles :  elks 
p  nneut  le  caractfer^  de  marcbandises  de  contrebande ;  et  si  elles  sont  trouvdes  bors 
il  tout  juridiction  souveraino,  comnie,  par  exemple,  si  I'on  les  trouvait  en  pleine  iner, 
eiies  peuvent  Atre  l<^gitiniement  arrfitdes  et  contisqudes  par  I'ennemi,  quel  que  soit  le 
pavilion  qui  les  couvre,  non  pas  parce  quo  ce  sont  des  instruments  ou  provisions  de 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    (5REAT    BRITAIN. 


SJJ) 


ace.s  (IcH  bellicjr. 
KHiivu  (in'il  ii'v 


le  dtait  nnc  loj 
it  CO  coinnicrci 
iH«^e  coiitro  (MIX ; 
;)reuv6  cvi(l<!iit(> 
i{uerr«',  a  lion  .t 
Utincnt  coiiVL'ini 

trals  nijiy  sell 
a  bellijjm'eiit. 
t  of  briiijiiiiji 
lie  carriatje  ot 

la  (loeti'iim  i|iif 
j^iirdt't!  par  tons 
*t  la  iioiitniliti'. 
f  dimantlant  ni  mi 
landine  dc  aniln- 
ite  il  lions  nttri- 
;er  des  iiiaiclian- 
fur  i)ropro  tcni- 

inipaitialitr,  ci 
18  ne  protcndons 
0118  voiioim  (I'c.N- 
toii8  le8  antt'iir> 
msport  dew  r.iiii- 
(Oii  propro  ti^ri- 
doctrine. 

tel: 

t  uniqnonittnt  cii 
le  puissance  an 
iri\6  coinnic  coii- 

jli(>rt's  on  11  iic 
ai'ticiilier  de  s'v 
on.  fait  <;()mmirir 

nc  jxiis  troiinr 
ise  pas  do  in't'n 

II  de  nu)  nnirc. 

no  aucun  jnsti' 

nedi  says: 

I  ([iiestion,  e,t  de 
lisoment  aptMvn 
de  contreltaiidc, 
nis  aux  nentrt's, 
(!e  de  maicliaii- 
s<^8  ii  les  veiidro 


le  Tusage  qn'oii 
us  qu'elles  soiit 
I ;  ellea  s'y  ven- 
leuK  circonstan- 

qu'elles  soient 
.  qu'elles  soient 
B«  hoatUes :  ellos 
it  trouvdes  born 

en  pleiue  mei', 
quel  que  soit  le 
u  proviBions  de 


onerre,  inais  parce  «|ue  ve  sont  des  choHes  a]ipart(>naiite8  i\  I'eiineuii,  ou  au  iiioiiiH  parce 
(Jn'elles  sout  de8tin<?e8  a  devenir  sa  propridt<5  et  h  aooroltre  ses  forces.  D'oii  il  r(isulto 
que  le  Bouveraiu  qui  peruiet  siir  sou  territoire  le  coiniiierco  iibro  de  touten  Horlen  d'ohjetn 
lie  jtaase  pas  les  droit8  de  souveiaiuetc^,  et  lea  puissances  bellijioiantes  ue  peuveut  sVu 
jilaiudre  ni  I'accuser  de  douiier  la  uiaiu  a  la  veute  des  niarcliaudises  d(;  coiitrebaiide, 
((ui,  8ur  sou  territoire,  ne  peuvent  Jamais  avoir  ce  caractere,  et  ne  pcuvent  on  porter 
le  noni  que  lorscpi'elles  soiit  devenncs  ou  destiin^es  a  devenir  la  propricto  de  I'eunemi, 
et  sorties  du  territoire  oil  elles  out  etc  achetdes. 

In  chapter  viii,  Lainpredi  fortifies  these  views  by  a  detailed  exainina- 
tiou  of  numerous  treaties,  and  of  the  practice  of  the  different  states  of 
l<jiirope;  the  result  of  which  is  sutti(;ienMy  stated  in  the  extract  {»:iven 
lieh>w,  from  Wheaton's  History  of  the  progress  of  the  hiws  of  nations. 
Azuni  (SyHtvme  unii'craii  dc  principe>i  du  droit  maritime  dc  VEuropr, 
1791),  l.SOO,  Digeon's  transhition)  on  all  these  points  agrees  with 
[UOJ     Lampredi.     In  vol.  ii,  cliap.  1,  art.  .'3,  p.  ,'51,  he  distinguishes  *be 
tween  "coinmenie  actif,"  consisting  of  exports  to  foreign  nations, 
and  "commerce  passif,"  consisting  of  internal  tratle  with  foreigners. 
In  chapter  ii,  articles  1  and  0,  page  50,  he  says: 

I'ne  grander  partle  du  coinincrcc,  de  (]iu'l(|U('s  nations  enroi)t't'nnes,  tclles  (|ne  los 
Snedois,  les  Norvo<j;ieiis  et  les  Knsses,  consiste  en  inurchandises  necessaires  jionr  la  jjnerre 
iinuitinie,  jionr  la  constniclion  et  jtonr  reqiiiiteineiit  d'line  llotte;  elles  veiident  en 
teiiis  de  jiaix,  a  qnieonquts  en  a  hesoin,  du  I'er,  du  eiiivre,  des  niAts,  des  bois,  du  ^on- 
tlion,  de  la  poix,  et  des  canons,  nijiti  d^-H  nuvires  de  guerre  vntiern.  (^uelles  raisons  ]>our- 
rait-il  y  avoir  de  i)river  c«!s  nations  de  li'ur  coniineree  et  de  leiir  nianiere  de  subsister, 
il  I'occasion  d'une  guerre  a  laquelle  ils  ne  j>renneiit  aucune  jtart  ?  11  n'y  a,  dans  le  code 
lie  la  justice  et  de  I'eciuite,  rien  en  laveiir  d'une  telle  protection.  II  est  done  necessairo 
tl'etablir  cornine  niaxiine  fondanieiilale  de  tout  droit,  (pie,  les  iteniiles  neutres  devant 
et  pouvant  licitiinient  continuer  le  commerce  qu'ils  font  en  tenia  de  jiaix,  on  ne  doit 
/aire  aucune  diiitinclioii  de  dciirocs,  de  marcliandises  et  de  muniifaclnres,  qnoiiine  propren  a 
la  guerre,  et  que,  par  cette  raison,  la  vente  »;t  le  transport  aux  jiarties  l)elii<i;erantes  en 
sunt  perm  is,  si  le  commerce  actif  et  |)assif  etait  <^tabli  en  tenia  de  paix,  sans  qu'on 
jjuisse  prendre,  en  aucune  nianiere,  (jue  la  nentralite  aoit  violee,  pourvu  que  cela  .se 
la.sse  sans  aniuioaite,  sans  preference  et  sans  partialite. 

In  the  same  chapter,  art.  3,  sec.  3,  p.  83,  he  says : 

Si  le  droit  dea  gens  universel  XJe'''"fit  anx  neutres  qui  sont  en  possession  de  faire 
nil  commerce  actif  avee  lea  nationa  bellig«hantes  le  transjiort  impartial  de  (|nel<|ue 
espece  de  marcliaudise  a  uue  d'elles,  quoiciu'elle  soit  du  uombre  de  celles  appelc^es  contre- 
liande,  par  le  nieme  principe  de  raison,  la  vente  des  nienies  marcliandises  sur  le  propre 
territoire  doit  etro  perniise  toutes  les  fois  «|ue  la  natiou  iieutie  aura  fait  avant  la 
;;iierre  un  commerce  passif  avee  la  nation  lielligorante.  Ainsi,  le  commerce  gendral 
jiassif  ou  la  vente  inipartiale  sur  le  propre  territoire  dea  neutres,  de  marcliandises, 
(leiirees,  on  mannfactnren,  de  tonte  enpiee,  sera  toujonra  perniia,  pourvu  quo  le  aouveraiii 
n'ait  jiaa  fait  un  traitd  particulier  avee  nn  des  belligdranta  dont  lea  siijets  viennent 
taiie  des  achats  et  dea  provisions  sur  le  territoire  iieiitre,  et  (ju'il  ne  se  niele  jias  des 
achats,  dea  ventes  et  dea  autrea  contrats  qui  transii'ettent  la  propridte,  qn'il  n'ordonne 
jias  (jn'oii  rempliaae  lea  niagaains  de  provisions  de  guerre,  et  ne  fasse  pas  mcttre  ses 
iiaviics  a  la  voile  pour  les  transporter  sur  le  territoire  du  belligerant.  En  juotegeant 
egaiemeut  le  commerce  de  son  paya,  en  pernietiant  a  ses  sujets  de  continuer  leur  coni- 
iiierce  de  la  nifiine  mani^re  et  avee  la  nuMiie  liberty  qn'avant  la  guerre,  il  ne  fait  (pi'iiaer 
<le  dioita  iucuntestables  qui  ne  peuvent  etre  limites  que  par  des  conveutiona  ap6ciale8, 
express^ment  ou  tacitement  faites. 

Skc.  5.  Malgrd  la  soliditd  de  ce  principe  fondamental,  Galiani  a  voulu  <5tablir  une 
tlieorie  absolument  coutraire,  non  aeulcnient  au  principe  (luej'ai  prdcdderanieut  dtabli, 
uiais  encore  h,  toua  les  autres  principea  qu'il  a  adoptds  dans  son  oiivrage. 

Si:c.  6.  Aprfes  avoir  en8eign<S  avee  raison  que  la  neutralitd  n'est  pas  nn  6tat  de 
cliose  nouvelle,  mais  la  continuation  d'un  ancieu  6tat;  aprfta  avoir  ajoutd  que  IVtat  de 
neutrality  n'est  et  ne  pent  6tro  un  nouvel  6tat  dans  lequel  passe  une  aouverainetd,  niais 
line  permanence  et  une  continuation  du  prdcddent,  qui  est  tel,  parce  qu'il  n'est  pas 
siirve-)u  de  nonvelles  causes  qui  I'obligent  h  changer,  il  en  conclut  (au  grand  <^tonnement 
tie  qiiiconque  est  dans  son  bon  sens)  que  les  neutres  ne  peuvent  vendre  sur  leur  propre 
territoire,  comuie  ila  le  faisaient  auparavant,  aux  snjeta  des  nations  belligdrantes,  des 
armca,  dea  instruments  et  d'autres  munitions  de  guerre.  Maia  si  la  guerre,  couime  il 
ledit,  n'apporte  aucun  chaugenient  au  premier  ?tat  d'un  peuple  neutre,  si  la  guerre 
n'an<?antit  pas  les  droits  qu'il  avait  en  terns  de  paix,  par  quelle  raison,  dia-je,  doit-il 
abstenir  de  faire  les  commerce  qu'il  faisait  avant  la  guerre  ?    Par  quelle  raiaou  sora-t-il 


'iV''WBi 


11 


■  l^■.'^,^  Ml :  * 


''^ti. 


i     i 


t, 

\  ■ 


400 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


ol)lig«<  (le  c1iaii{;or  Hon  <^tnt,  qui,  Holon,  1»^h  )>ropreH  principcH  de  Onlinni,  ne  tloit,  an  inii\  1 1, 
(hi  la  iieutralit?<|ii'il  a  adoptdc,  Atn;  altdr*')  en  rion  1  Par  quelle  raison,  etijin,  ne  ponmi- 
l-il  pan  rendre,  daiin  im  port  neutre,  iiii  raixaean  propre  a  la  naviijation,  avevlen  attiruil^  </. 
fluerre  f  On  nVn  trouve  jhas  d'autre  dnuH  (Jaliani  (lue  colic  dc  la confuNion  qii'il  a  jct.i' 
dans  868  tlidui'icM  <•".  hc  lainsant  ti'ansjM)rter  jHir  I'c.sprit  de  parti,  lui-Ni|u'il  a  vonlu  ri-l'ii- 
ter  I'opiniun  de  Lanipredi,  qni  Houtient  In  contrairc.  C'cst  pi<>ci8dnient  aloiH  r|nf  l.i 
vdritd  He  cache  dans  lea  t<^n«!brc8  dc  hch  Hubtilcn  laiHonnenients  et  de  ses  in^(5nicux  paia- 
lojjiHincH.  II  est  done  nt'^cessaiic  <iue  je  idpfete  ici  lo  principc  inconteatable  qne  jai 
pr<^c<^deninient  rapport*';,  ([u'en  Hnivant  le  droit  conventionnel  de  I'Europe,  Ics  neutn ■>, 
ne  penvent  porter  le8  chosen  qni  Hont  Hpecialeinent  propres  i\  la  >jnerre,  et  qni  y  soiir 
directcnient  enij)loy«5e8,  nniin  (jn'iln  penvent  sans  inconvdnient,  selon  le  droit  universcl 
des  genH,  IcH  vendre  coinnie  nuirchaudiMO  snr  lenr  propre  territoire  ji  iinicon(|ne  sc  \)\v- 
sente  ponr  Icrt  achetcr,  jinisqn'ils  le  font  Hans  partiality,  et  aans  montrer  de  favim 
plntOt  ponr  nne  partie  belligdranto  (pic  ponr  I'autre. 

No  European  writer,  before  1858,  had  advanced  any  doctrice  at  vari 
ance  with  the  passages  above  cited  from  Lampredi  and  Azuni,  except 
so  far  as  Galiani  had  done  so;  and  the  doctrine  of  Galiani,  as  is  shown 
in  these  extrficts,  (and  in  other  passages  of  the  same  writers,)  was  not 
only  novel,  but  inconsistent  with  itself. 

In  England  there  is  no  trace  of  a  ditferent  doctrine  having  been  held 
or  advocated  by  any  jurist ;  although  the  interest  of  England  in  this 
class  of  questions  had  been  generally  that  of  a  belligerent.  In  1721, 
on  the  occasion  of  a  complaint  being  made  by  the  minister  of  Sweden 
that  certain  ships  of  war  had  been  built  in  England  and  sold  to  the 
Czar,  the  judges  were  ordered  to  attend  the  House  of  Lords  and  deliver 
their  opinions  on  the  question,  whether  the  King  of  England  had  power 
to  prohibit  the  building  of  ships  of  war,  or  of  great  force,  for  foreigi.ers. 
and  they  answered  that  the  King  had  no  power  to  prohibit  the  same.— 
Fortescue's  lieports,  j).  388.) 

Mr.  Iteddie,  of  Edinburgh,  whose  useful  "  Researches,  historical  and 
critical,  in  maritime  international  law,"  were  published  in  1844,  cites 
with  approbation  the  views  of  Lanipredi  and  Azuni  on  the  point  in 
controversy  between  these  writers  and  Gaiiiui,  and  bestows  especial 
praise  upon  the  former  of  these  jurists. 

In  the  case  of  the  United  States,  a  passage  ia,  it  is  true,  cited  from 
the  well-known  work  of  M.  Hautefeuille,  entitled  "  Les  droits  et  les 
deiioirs  des  nations  neutres  en  temps  de  guerre  maritime,-^  published  in 
1858,  in  which  the  author  alHrms  that  the  building  or  arming  in  a 
neutral  port  of  a  vessel  of  war  for  a  belligerent  is  a  violation  of  the 
neutral  territory  and  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  neutral,  and  that  cap 
tures  made  by  such  a  vessel  are  unlawful.    M.  Hautefeuille  is  a 
[14V]    writer  of  great  ingenuity  and  ♦research,  but  the  foundation  ot 
his  work  is  the  assumption  that  the  settled  and  ascertained 
usage,  or,  as  it  has  sometimes  been  called,  the  positive  law,  of  nations, 
is  to  be  rejected  as  erroneous  when  it  appears  to  conflict  with  such  con 
elusions  as  he  is  able  to  draw  from  a  priori  reasoning.    His  statements 
of  principle  are,  therefore,  to  be  received  with  caution,  but  his  state 
ments  of  fact  are  generally  careful  and  valuable.     It  is  apparent,  how 
ever,  that  in  the  above-mentioned  passage  M.  Hautefeuille  cannot  have 
intended  to  condemn  the  mere  construction,  to  the  order  of  a  belliger 
ent,  of  a  vessel  of  war  which  is  not  armed  or  equipped  for  war  w  ben 
she  leaves  the  neutral  port,  since  in  a  subsequent  part  of  the  same 
work  he  contends  that  she  is  not  even  contraband  of  war,  when  sent  to 
sea,  unless  armed : 

A  regard  des  vaisseanx  construits,  la  question  n'a  jamais  6t6  tranchde  par  I'-* 
traitds;  pen  d'autenrs  h'cu  »ont  occupds,  et  ceux  qui  I'ont  fait  se  sent  borues,  couunt; 
Aznui,  i\  «5uoncer  une  opinion  sans  entrer  dans  la  discussion.  Hiibnera  snivi  cef'' 
nnirche ;  11  declare  contrebande  les  vaisseanx  de  guerre  construits  dans  les  ports 
neutres,  ponr  le  coinpte  de  I'nu  des  belligdrants,  et  faisaut  route  pour  ses  etats. 


" .» 


15! 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    GREAT   IJRITAIX. 


401 


,T(i  110  puis  cninpronilo  fin'iin  bAtiintMit,  (intMlos  ((tie  Noiout  sn  graiidt'iir,  sa  finiiio,  sa 
(Icstiiiatioii,  Moit  III!  t»l»ji't  tit;  fontrt^haiiilt!  tli'  ^^uiTi't*.  (iii  iiiivirt^  n't'st  pas  propi'c  a  la 
LMii'iTf,  pii'pai't^  ptmr  siTvir  fxcliisivfiiUMit  aiix  tn>ri'ati<ins  inilitairns,  a|>tn  a  t'ti'i- fiii- 
iilini^  a  fi's  t>i»t'rati()iis,  iiiiini'iUati'iiii'iit  tit  sans  aiicmi  fliiiii;;i'iiii'iit,  sans  aiifniii;  ailtli- 
tidii.  lii)rsi|ii'il  I'st  tli'-pourvii  ties  ttanoiis,  tk^s  iiiiiiiitioiis,  tlos  aniii's,  t>t  tli>»4  luniiiiit's  ([ui 
ildivfiit  It's  fiiiployt-r,  trii  n'cst  pas  mm  iiiacliiiio  tUi  uiumti):  c'tist  iin  vt''liiciili«  plus  on 
iiioiiis  ^ranil,  plus  tin  nioiiis  siilidi-,  inais  et;  n't'st^  i|u'iiii  vt'hit;ult>.  rmir  liii  iliMiiifr  li's 
qiiiilifi^s  spt'fialt'H  t!t  t>xcliisivt!H  i(iii  dt'^tt'rmintMir  If  carat'ttTt*  tin  t:t»iitrt'l»aiiilt;  tic  f^iit'rri', 
ilfst  imet'ssairt^  do  traiisptntt'r  a  Imrtl  tics  t-antins,  tlt;s  ariufs,  th^s  inimititins,  tMi  iin  nu)t 
toll  I'attirail  tin  cttmhat.  Cost  altirs  st!iili!niiMit  tiun  Id  hi\tiiiiiMit  tli!vii'iit,  mm  nno 
niatliinc  tlti  <;m'nn,  niais  nut*  niaeliiiit'  i>t)rtaiit  ties  instrinntMits  tit*  j^unrrt',  ft  siistipt  iltk's 
ill'  iiitlrf,  jiar  fotti)  ciit't)nstani'i'  st-iiltMnt'nt,  an  l>c'lli}ftMaiit.  Mais  la  niacliinc  i-ilt'-nu'ini'. 
iiiais  !(>  vt^hifnltj  ilonn<i  do  stin  aiinonitnt,  7h;  jient  t'tif  if  jiutt^  ii\iisildt\  An  ifstt',  il  fant 
((invfiiir  tpif  CO  cdimiiici'co  t!st  pen  tVt'ipu'iit,  i!t  la  incillcnro  ])renvt!  i|nt' jti  jMiissi!  tltjii- 
mr  tic  riiuiocuittj  do  co  iicjjttce  est  lo  silence  ilu  lUoit  socuiulairo  a  stni  cyaitl. 

After  stating  tli.at  materials  for  sliip-building  and  for  the  iMjuipniont 
of  ships  cau  under  no  circumstances  be  contraband  of  Mar,  he  con- 

chules : 

Lis  Mlimeuts  non  anm'x,  coiixtriiitu  daiin  leu  ports  iiciitirK  ct  rrudim  mix  nntioiiH  ni</a(iirs 
ilmix  Ux  hontilile^,  qiiillcn  qitv  noieiit  U-iir  forre,  Ut  nature  dn  Iciir  coiiHlriiclioii,  hoiiI  vfialviiuiil 
::hjiln  (I'liii  rommercc  licitc.  Jls  doireiil  t'lre  rtyis  pur  hi  rhjU'  in'in'ralr,  ifiti  cut  la  lihcrtc  oi- 
uitv  dn  cttinmcrce  cntre  kn  natioHti  uvittrjH  vt  Ivs  dtiix  belliyvruiits. — ( lluitte/tuillc,  vol.  il,  pp  , 
144-1  Ki.) 

M.  IIautereuille,thorofore,\vlio has  been  cited  by  tlie  United  States,  here 
jroes  beyond  all  preceding  writers,  and  asserts  with  the  utmost  clear 
iie.ss  that  a  vessel  not  actually  armed  Ibr  war  is,  under  all  circumstances, 
an  innocent  obje(;t  of  lawful  commerce,  whatever  nmy  be  her  size  or 
iDice,  or  the  charai^ter  of  her  construction,  and  he  ad(ls  that  the  best 
liiDofof  this  is  that  the  law  of  nations,  so  far  as  it  rests  on  interna- 
tional usaye  and  practice,  has  been  wholly  silent  on  the  subject. 

The  (iovernment  of  the  United  States  has  further  cite<l  a  jiassajye 
tVom  Ortolan's  "  Diplomatie  de  la  merJ'  This  passage  is  not  found  in  any 
I'llition  of  M.  Ortolan's  excellent  work  anterior  to  tlu^  civil  war.  It 
expresses,  therefore,  an  opinion  recently  formed  by  the  writer  on  a  (pies- 
tiou  which  he  evidently  regards  i\r  a  new  one,  but  it  is  not,  nor  indeed 
does  it  puri)ort  to  be,  evidence  that  such  an  opinion  had  been  held  be- 
fore, much  less  that  it  had  been  sanctioned  by  the  usage  and  general 
consent  of  nations. 

Among  the  jurists  of  the  United  States  there  are  no  niore  famous 
nanies  than  those  of  Story  and  W'heaton.  The  opinion  of  the  former  was 
dearly  exi)ressed  in  the  case  of  the  Santissima  Trinidad,  (7  Whe^iion,  |). 
I'So.)  where  he  said,  "  There  in  nothimj  in  our  laws, or  in  the  laic  <>/  nations, 
that  forbids  our  citizens  from  sendinf/  armed  vessels,  as  weli  as  munitions 
of  war,  to  foreign  ports  for  sale.  It  is  a  commercial  adventur.^  whi(?h  no 
luition  is  bound  to  prohibit,  and  which  only  exposes  the  persons  engaged 
in  it  to  the  penalty  of  conttscation.''  Wheat«)n,  in  his  excellent  History 
if  the  progress  of  the  law  of  nations,  (French  edition,  Leipsic,  ISoo,  vol.  i, 
p.  37(5,)  referring  to  the  controversy  between  Lampredi  and  (Jaliani; 
writes  as  follows : 

Lampredi  passe  maintenant.  h  I'cxamen  dUine  question  oiseuse  sttsciteepar  Galiani,  savoir : 
1  '  Silc  tirt)it  ties  j{ensc()nveiitionncl,t|ni  iiitertlit  lo  coniiiicice  avcc  renncini  tic  inaitliaii- 
ilises dc oontrebande,  prohibe  la  veiito  do  ces  niarcliandiscs  dans  It;  teriitoiit!  iicntio." 
Giliani  lopond  a  cetto  tjucstioii  par  I'altiriiiativo,  et  il  j>relend  qu'un  raifseaii  par  exemplc, 
mHlniit  it  armt!  pour  la  guerre  dans  iin  2>ort  neutre  ne  pent  y  etre  leyalemciit  rendu  a  une  den 
piirtim  belligeraHts.  Lampredi  se  donneheanvoup  de  peines  s«2;e>;//Hfs  pour  appnyer,  jiar 
la  laison  et  I'antorittS  des  publicisttvs  pr<5ct'donts,  st)n  opinion  que  lo  transport  senl  tics 
inareliaiulisos  tie  contrebaiido  t\  reniieini  est  probibt^,  niais  que  la  vente  tie  ces  niar- 
(iiaiitlist^s  tians  le  torritoire  de  l¥tat  neutre  est  parlaiteiuent  lt5gale.  11  atluict  tju'll 
lH'Ut  y  avoir  des  extiinples  de  natitms  iientrtjs  qui,  do'sirant  jiar  iirutlence  i5viter  tics  ct)l- 
lisioim  avec  les  puiBsanccs  belligt?rantes,  auraieiit  probibe  le  coniinerce  des  i)bjt!ts  do 
coiitivliaiide  dans  les  liinitcs  de  leur  prt>pre  territoire  ;  inais  il  attirine  <iue,  pciulant  la 
guerrtf  de  Tiuddpeudauce  de  I'Aiu^iitxue  du  Nord,  Veuise  douuuit  soule  1  exemple  d'uue 

26  A— n 


n 


II 


402 


TREATY    OF    WA.SIIIXGTOX. 


t<'ll(>  ))n>lii1)itioii  <1<' lii  ]iint  rl'iin  ^t;itm'iitrt>.  Nii|i1ph  (irohilta  Honlciiirnt,  lii  cdiisfnn'. 
timi  lies  ViiissfflllX  (Ir  ;;ll('l  re  tlcsl  iiit'.s  a  ctrc  Vcmllis,  ft  ri-\|i()rt)ll  ioli  dfs  illltrcs  nlijcu 
ill'  I'oiilrclianilc,  tamlis  i{iii'  la  'roHraiic  |MMiiiit  a  ni'm  HiiJrtN  ilo  roiitiiini'r  iciir  I'oiiiiiii'ii.' 
acciMiliiint'  lie  ri'S  (ilijcts.  ilaiis  Ich  liiiiili's  ili' sun  ti'iiitoirc,  i-t  iiar  rcxpoitatiMii.  s:\\\\ 
If  ilriiit  <lfs  piiissaiicfM  lie  lli<r(''raiitfN  ili.'  saisir  fii  iiifi'  at  lii;  foiiliM(|iifi'  Ics  olijf  Im  tlfstiiiis 
a  I'lisa;;!'  dfs  fiiiifinis, 

TIr'  follow  in;;  rxtiiK.'t  from  tlio  Ainciican  l-iiw  Roviow  of  January,  IS71, 
a  periodical  \vliicli  tU'.servtMlly  ijosscssch  the  lii;;lic'st  rcpntation,  shows 
in  wliat  manner  this  (pu'stion  was  last  year  reyardetl  by  aeeoniplishcd 
jiiiists  in  the,  LTniteil  States,  and  upon  what  distinetions  those  jurists 
considered  it  necessary  to  rely,  in  order  to  maintain  the  present  claims 
a;<ainst  (Jreat  Jiritain : 

A  sliip,  tlieori'fically  coiisiiloivd,  may  or  may  not  bo  oontnilmnd.  If  on  its  way  ton 
bfjiinfifnt  iitiit  for  the  iiiirposf  oflifinj;  solil  to  tin-  liflli;;fii'nt,  it  will  Iw  i  (intratjiiiid 
it'  it  is  ailaptfil  or  icailily  ailaptahlf  lor  warliki-  use;  fipially  so,  dinibtliss,  it'  it  Im' 
ailaptfil  tor  tlif  transjiortation  of  troojts,  or  cvi'm  jifrliajis  of  military  niiitfiinl. 
[148]  Inasmnrli,  tlu'rffort',  as  very  ffw  vi-ssfls  arc  not  fapaltli!  of  hoinj;  littfil  *  and 
n^fll  for  onf  or  tlif  otlu-r  of  llu'Sf  jinriiosfs,  it  may  In;  laid  down  ^ffiifrally  tlint 
sliijis  will  pri'tty  snri'ly  Itf  fondfinnid  as  font  raliand  of  war.  Nor  will  it  help  tlif  iimt- 
ter  tliat  a  continf-cnfy  may  pri-vi-nt  tin;  salf.  I'lms,  wlii-ro  tlm  raptain  liad  onlci-s  to 
sell  if  lif  could  lind  a  f;ood  |Mircliasfr,  Imt  otherwise  to  seek  freiylit,  the  shij)  was  con. 
dcnincd,  (the  Mrntns,  r>  Kolt.  Adm.,  'X)\,  note  and  apii.)  The  case  of  the  Meteor,  lic.nd 
before  .1  d<;e  Nelson,  in  the  I'luted  States  district  court,  may  be  regarded  as  furnisliiiij; 
authority  for  the  same  doctrine. 

'Ihe  neutrality  acts  of  the  United  States  and  fireat  IJritain  may  possibly  have  tin; 
<'iVect  of  clondiufX  the  ])opnlar  ai>]Hehcnsion  of  this  subject.  Hut  the  thread  of  an  un- 
i|Ufstionfd  ami  uniinestionablc  i)iinci]»l(!  is  ([uite  caiial)le  of  bein;;  traced  tliron;;!!  nil 
the  If^al  avj^nmcut  and  diplomatic  controversy.  With  re;;ard  to  ships,  as  with  r<'i;nril 
to  all  other  dcscriiitious  of  ••ontraband  nu'ndiandise,  no  restriction  is  placed  by  int.'i- 
nat  ional  law  upon  tiade.  'J'lie  naked  ri<j;ht  to  sell  a  ship  of  war  to  a  belli<;ercnt  is  imt 
int(  rl'frcd  with.  Ihit  a  nential  port  cannot  lie  nnide  the  base  of  hostile  operations  hy 
either  belli;;ereut  aj;ainst  the  other.  It  is  because  the  ri;;ht  to  sell  a  ship  of  war  in  a 
neutral  pint,  or  to  semi  it  from  a  neutral  jiort  for  sale  abroad,  are  so  iipt  to  be  wron;;- 
l'ull\'  majinilied  into  the  actual  e(|nipment  .•mil  dispatch  of  a  uulitary  expedition  fioin 
th.-it  i)ort.  that  m-utrality  acts  have  been  jiassed.  'J'heir  intent  has  not  been  to  iiroliiliit 
Sides,  but  Ihcy  have  been  oblii^cd  to  hampci'  the  rijiht  of  sale  with  a  multitude  of  snli- 
jiinuds  aj;aiuHt  tlu^  activity  and  deceit  of  men  who  would  aibl  to  the  le^iitiniate  1)n>l- 
ness  transaction  an  improper  and  uujuslitiable  adjunct.  The  history  of  the  lu'utrnliiy 
lo'islation  shows  this.  'J"he  tirst  neutrality  act  ever  known  was  passed  by  the  Cniriil 
States.  Tlu^  inuncdiate  i»rovocation  was  the  e(|uipnu!ut  by  I'rance of  privatee is,  wliicli 
de|iaited,  manned  and  armed,  from  our  jtorts  to  cruise  aj^ainst  (Jreat  Hritain.  (,'on;ir(>s. 
therffoie,  iiassed  tht;  neutrality  act  of  171)4.  In  lrtl7  and  l-'ld  this  was  iniinovi  d  nl 
the  suiij^fstiou  of  the  l'ortn<iuese  ujiuister,  to  meet  the  n'etiessitics  arising'  out  of  tin' 
wjir  tlu-n  wajfiiifj;  by  Spain  and  Portuf^al  with  their  cis-Atlautii!  colonics.  In  eaclml' 
these  years  Con^i'i'ss  carefully  and  by  obvious  intent  reserved  to  American  citi/ons 
the  power  to  sell.  A  ]iroposcd  bill  took  away  this  jiower,  and  was  aiuended  before  Im  - 
cominj;  an  act  by  the  striking  out  of  all  such  jirohibitivo  lanj;;uaj;e.  Conyiess  siuinlv 
fnrnishi  d  le^jiil  machinery  to  the  executive,  wluireby  the  stretching  of  the  transaction 
of  salv  into  the  dispatch  of  a  nulitary  expedition  nnght  bejirevented.  The  Ihitish  lor- 
oign-enlistment  act,  modeled  upon  our  own  legislation,  aimed,  by  lesscflectivo  languaiii', 
to^acconiplish  precisely  the  sanu!  end. ' 

Familiar  examples  of  innocent  and  guilty  transactions  will  occur  at  once  to  evnrv 
American.  Of  the  former,  the  case  of  the  Meteor  is  recent  and  prominent.  The  IUmI 
averred  that  she  was  to  be  sold  to  Chili,  then  at  war  with  Spain,  with  both  of  wliidi 
nations  we  were  at  peace.  Judge  Nelson  iimintaineil  the  right  of  the  owners  to  sell 
the  shiit,  as  she  lay  at  the  wharf,  unj)repared  for  nulitary  service,  neither  manned  nor 
armed,  and  having  no  covert  arrangements  made  for  the  procuring  of  either  men  or 
arms.  Even  the  Governiiu'nt  coun.sel  acknowledged  that,  in  order  to  condeinu  the 
vessel,  it  would  bo  necessary  directly  to  overrule  the  whole  course  of  American  Juiis- 
prudcnce  on  thc'subject.  The  right  of  sale,  hona  Ji<le,  to  a  belligereut,  unacconiiianiril 
by  extraneous  illicit  circumstances,  has  been  upheld  by  our  courts  as  clearly  and  con- 
sistently as  by  our  legislature.  (The  Mermaid,  Bee,  Adm.,  69  ;  Moodie  r.  The  Altml, 
.'•!  Dall.,  ;<07,  which  is  probably  the  same  case  under  a  dirt'erent  name.  The  Sautissinni 
Trinidad,  7  Wheat.,  iJH'J,  a  famous  and  leading  case.  Also  the  United  States  r.  Quiiicy, 
()  Pet.,  445.)    The  instance  of  the  guilty  transactions  which  will  at  once  occur  to  all  is 


a.  \'t. 


'  It  will  be  seen  from  the  examination  in  Annex  B  that  the  provisions  of  the  Hritisli  ^ 
foreigu-enlistmeut  act  were,  on  the  contrary,  more  effective  than  those  of  the  American. 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    GREAT    URITAIN. 


4o:j 


tliiit  of  tlio  An^.o-n^ltol  rniisfrH.  If  wjis  imt  liocanso  tho  Mi'ssrs.  I/iirtl  sold  ii  wni-sliip 
til  till'  I'linri'ili'i'iiti's  1 1  lilt  \\i'  liiiM«  ii  cliiiiii  ;i;r;iiiist  I'iii^lainl  lor  a  Iii'imi'Ii  of  iiitcriiiit  ioiiiil 
l;i\v.  Mill  il.  was  iicctiiis*' colhiti'ial  ari'aii;;i-ini'iils  I'or  coiniili'tiii;;;  llio  i':|ui|iiiiriil  ami 
iiriMiiiHciil  oC  llic  sliip  so  sold,  liy  plai'iii;;  on  lioai'd  oHicrrs  mid  rn-w,  ;;iiiis  aiitl  ]>i'o\  is- 
miis,  I'l'iidci'fd  llio  ciitiir.  |)i'ii('i-diii'H,  ill  rar't,llii-  iiin'|itioii  of  a  liostili- iiiidi'rtakiii;^  iVoiu 
till' loiiliiifs  ol'  a  neutral  <;oiiivtry.  It  is  in-cdluss  to  (dal>oratc  fnrtlii'i  :i  iiialtiT  \vlii(ii 
is  ill  !i  iiK'UHiirc  (ii^i'i'ssivc.  It  may  in-  dcidait'd  as  iiidiiliilalilif  that  tlir  |niii-  iiiialloyrd 
li;ir;;aiii  and  salis  of  a  ship,  livnti  a  ship  of  war,  to  a  lii'lliy;<'rriit  is  'i-^^al  by  tin-  iiilcs  of 
iiitiiiiational  law;  that  such  a  ship  is,  howcvfi', conlfahand  oj'  war,  and  if  laptiiird 
iiftrr  salt'  on  hcf  way  towaid  didivcry,  or  bctoii'  sah<  on  licr  way  toward  a  iiiarl<i't  whcro 
she  is  intt!ii(l(Ml  to  he  sold  lo  a  hidli^icrciit,  slu-  will  ho  propufly  coiidfiniicd,  N'.'iilralit  y 
lifts  liavti  not  heon  inliMidrd  to  cliiin^fo  tins  stato  of  tin-  law,  hiil,  only  In  furnish  siilli- 
liiiit  iiit'iins  for  pnnniitin;^  its  ahuso.  Oiir  ori;;inal  proposition  thai  tlm  doctriiir  of 
iiMitialiand  of  war  does  not  oiicratt;  as  a  rcstrii'tion  upon  trade,  upon  dealin;is  whieh 
;iit'  purely  coninunrial,  reiiiains  correct,  oven  in  this  matter  of  war-vessels,  Tlie  neii- 
nil  is  jiot  ciillod  upon  aclividy  to  inttudcre  with  coiii!ner(H',  lint  he  is  called  iipuii 
;irti\ely  to  prevent  the  use  of  his  territory  iw  tho  liaso of  liostilo  oponitions. — .Inici-iiini 
Liw  h'rv'uir,  vol.  V,  )),  :!71. 

It  was  not  siillicitMit,  acx'ordinjTf  to  tlii.s  viow  of  tlie  law,  tliat  tlio  Ala- 
hmiia  was  a  vcs.sel  adapted  t\>r  war,  nor  that  tlien^  was  reason  to  lu'- 
lii'V?  tliat  site  was  intended  lor  tlm  (Jon federate  States.  Tliese  fattts 
aloiio  woidd  not  make  it  the  duty  of  the  JJritisli  fioverninent  to  prevent 
lier  depaitnre.  That  duty  woiihl  not  aris<!  until  there  was  "i'asonal»le 
jlioiiiid  to  believe  tlnit  tlie  arran<;einents  for  dispatehinj;'  her  iiicinded 
also  atranjifenients  for  conipletin;;"  her  arinainent  by  jjlaeiuj^  on  board 
licr  yiuis  and  crow ;  in  short,  that  what  was  talvinj^'  placi*  was  not  merely 
tho  <Usj)ateh  of  a  ship  of  war  constriu't«'d  for  belli;;erent  nse  from  a 
neutral  port,  but  the  <lispat(;h  from  ii  neutral  tenitoiy  of  a  military  e\- 
jii'dition.  And  to  snjiport  a  charge  of  nej^^lifience  aj^iiinst  the  ;;(»vern- 
mciit,  it  would  be  neciessary  to  prove  that  tite  <;'overnm«Mii  eitiier  knew 
all  this,  or,  had  reasoimble  care  been  exerci.sed,  would  have  known  it. 

'  is,  however,  is  exactly  what  has  not  been,  aiul  cannot  be,  ]>roved. 
knowledj^'e  of  these  facts  was  not  in  the  possession  nor  within  the 

,^ii  of  the  government. 

It  must  be  here  observed  that  the  decisions  of  municipal  tribunals, 
oil  the  construction  of  the  municipjd  law  of  the  United  States  or  of  I'hi;:- 
liiiid,  are  not  to  be  cited  as  authorities  for  the  construction  of  the  law  of 
nations. 

The  ^^eneral  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  the  fores'oiufj  authorities  is, 
as  the  British  government  believes,  fairly  stated  above,  pp.  11,  1-. 


m  *AXXEX  (B.) 

THE  BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  FOREIGN-ENLISTMENT  ACTS. 


-  '-r^ 

II 

1 

It  is  assumed  throughout  the  United  States  Case  that  the  American 
act  of  Congress  of  1818  is  more  etlicieut  than  the  British 
act  of  Parliament  of  1810,  and  a  contrast  is  attempted  to  Annvi,,) 

be  drawn,  to  the  disiidvantage  of  the  British  law,  between  the  provis- 
ions of  the  former,  as  epitomized  in  the  President's  proclamation  of  neu- 
trality of  October  8,  1870,  and  the  provisions  of  the  latter,  as  explained 
iau  summary  given  at  page  111  of  the  Case. 

A  very  cursory  examination  will  be  sufficient  to  show  that  this  assump- 
tion is  erroneous. 


lU' 


■  -  rm 

'■•■  "i 


404 


TREATY   OF   WASHINGTON. 


Mr.  Doinis,  an  American  counsel  of  acknowledged  reimtation,  avIio 
jaiMiot  be  su.specti'd  of  any  i)artiality  in  favor  of  Clreat  Britain,  points 
out  no  less  tban  ten  particulars  iu  which  tlie  United  States  is  inferior 
to  the  British  law,  as  follows:^ 

Sonic  of  IlicHo  poiiu  .  of  superiority  relate  to  warlike  pJ^oparationH  on  land  (on  vvliidi 
Buhject  Kiifilisb  le^^islation  liad  provided,  to  some  extent,  at  a  much  earlier  date  tlnui 
our  own)  and  some  to  ]>re))arntii>ns  liy  sea,  and  some  ajjain  to  ]»reparations  comhinini' 
Ijotli  laiul  and  nuiri':e  operations.  Under  one  or  tiie  otiier  of  tlics(f  heads,  I  can  nmiiL' 
at  least  ten  inipoitant  jioints  of  superiority  in  the  British  statute  ov(;r  our  own. 

1.  Ill  tlirJirxtpUiir,  the  British  act  is  decidedly  more  comprdiensive  than  the  Ameri- 
can, in  tlenouiicinf;-  unneutral  enlistments,  both  in  the  land  and  naval  service  of  a  for- 
eign liitvernment,  l>y  makin<j;  it  i»cnal  "  to  ayrtc  to  enlist,"  or  ''  to  ciiguye  or  voiilract  to 
enlist,"  or  to  ''viit/dfii"  or  "  uitvmpt  lo  ciifiai/e  (tiiolhtr  jtnsoii  fa  viilini,"  neither  of  wIiIlIi 
initiatory  steps  of  raisin^j;  inrciH'n  levies  is  forbid. Icn  by  f)nr  statute.  Oar  act  (section  •>) 
e'lly  j)unishes  one  who  "enlists  or  enters  himself,  or  hires  or  retains  another  jiersou  to 
enlist,"  Ac.,  thus  nuikin;^  a  positive  and  complete  enrollment  or  hiring  ou  neutral  .soil 
a  }>rerei|iiisite  to  the  oll'ense. 

The  importance  of  this  distinction  will  be  ai)preciated  when  it  is  reme!id)ered  tlmt 
not  a  I'enian  recruit  nor  a  I'enian  recruiter  has  been  prosecuted  for  violating;  American 
];kws  /(//  rariiiliiin  on  .lincrican  noil  duriuf;  the  late  Fenian  demonstration  in  the  rnitcd 
(States,  thoiij-h  the  tiKjagiin;  to  enlist,  or  the  atlciiplnifi  lo  engage  others  to  enlist,  have 
probably  bi'cn  as  op(Mi  as  the  day  in  all  the  northern  cities. 

2.  //(  Ihc  .ftcotid ])l(ur,  tht!  British  act  is  more  comi)lete  than  our  own,  in  pndiibitiiijj 
any  hirin<r  or  retaininj^  itt' aiig  ponoii  n-iiuttocny,  by  w.iy  of  reeruitiufr,  for  forein;!!  wm- 
sliips  transiently  .sojournin}!;  in  British  neutral  waters,  without  excepting  the  subjects 
or  citi/eiis  ()/■  //((■  n(tmc  iidlioii  as  thai  to  irhich  nitch  irar-^lii})K  belong,  as  the  Aincricau 
statute  does,  in  section  'i.  The  effect  of  the  .\meri"an  exce)>ti(in  is,  that  if  the  rnitcd 
States  liap])ens  to  b(>  a  neutral  power,  and  Kiiglaud  and  France,  for  instance,  are  licl- 
lincreuts  towanl  each  other,  F.ngland  can  lawfully  recruit  from  anunig  British  subjects 
l'i;r  lu'r  shijis  of  war,  transiently  stopjiing  in  American  port.s  ;  and  France,  in  like  man- 
lier, from  Fr<'nch  snliji'i'ts  under  like  circumstances. 

;;.  Ou  the  other  hand,  in  the  third  iilaee.  the  su|)<'riority  of  the  British  act  over  tlw 
AmericjMi  is  decided,  in  for)  iibling  British  subjects  from  enlisting  ori?ngaging  iu  war- 
like operations  angwhere  irhalnoerer ;  while  the  ]n-ohibitiou  of  the  I'niteil  States  law  is 
limited  to  "any  ])ersou  icilliin  the  terrilorg  orjnrisdiction  of  the  United  States,"  (except  iu 
reference  to  titling  out  ships  abroad  to  ju'cy  upon  American  connnerce,  as  already 
noticed  in  tlit;  criticism  on  the  revision  of  the  act  of  17l>7,  and  which  exceiition,  as  liv 
section  I  of  the  act  of  181H.  is  altogether  abrogated  in  (ieneral  ISauks's  n<nv  scheme,  i  It 
Avould  seem  thus  that  citizens  of  the  I'nited  States,  under  th<^  laws  of  the  I'liitcd 
States  as  they  now  stand,  may  freely  go  abroad  to  enlist  in  a  fcreign  service — iu  fart, 
may  at  home,  on  American  soil,  agree  to  eidist  in  such  service,  (i>rovided  they  dii  not 
take  moiu'y  and  '^  enter  themxelren,")  withimt  committing  any  oll'ense  against  I'uitcd 
States  laws,  (see  I'nited  States  rv.  Ka/inski  ;)  but  that  l)oth  these  ilescri[itioiis  of  bel- 
ligerent unilertakiiigs  arc  denounced  by  the  British  statute. 

4.  Jn  the  J'oHvlh  i>l(iri\  the  British  act  is  greatly  superior  to  oiu"  own  its  a  jircveiitivo 
of  iufiiictioiis  of  u-'Utiality,  in  authorizing  (as  by  section  .">)  tlie  detention  ofanv  ves- 
sel about  leaving  tlie  British  dominions  with  persons  on  board  "wiiohavc  enlisttil  or 
engaged  to  enlist,"  Ac.  in  ;iiiy  lun-igii  belli^zi'rent  service  ;  thus  authorizing  the  stoji- 
]>iiig  of  any  warlike  i  mbarkation  I'm-  foreign  pai'ts.  which  our  laws,  as  they  now  stand, 
do  not,  unless  the  numlier  of  )»ersons  thus  collectively  embarking  brings  it  tuidii' 
another  hi-ad.  of  "setting  on  foot  a  military  expedition."  Set^tion  (»  of  the  British  ait 
follows  up  this  jireventivc  inovision,  by  making  it  penal  for  any  ship-master  to  ti.kcou 
board  his  ship  any  such  recruits,  "enlisted  or  engage  to  enlist"  in  a  foreign  i>cl- 
[ISO]  ligerent  service,  under  a  penalty  of  jC.")(I  per  'head  for  each  pa,s.senger.  It  fiiitlicr 
subjects  the  >\\\\)  itsv  If  to  seizure  and  detentiiui,  until  the  tine  incurred  as  above 
is  paid,  or  satisfactory  security  given  for  its  jiayineiit. 

Tlnsse  provisions  are  entirely  new  in  the  British  act,  and  find  no  exemplar  in  our 
own  statutes. 

r>.  In  the  fifth  plnee,  (to  come  to  the  head  of  fitting  out  ships,  and  maritime  neutrality 
purely,)  the  British  foreign-enlistment  act,  as  a  neutral  measure,  has  a  clear  sn|»ri- 
ority  over  our  own  in  forldihling  the  litting  «Mit,  Ac,  nf  auy  ^'tratmimrt  or  xlort^liiji" 
for  belligerei't  use — a  prohibition  never  contained  in  tli6  American  statute,  and  wliirli 
would  have  materially  narrowed  the  right  of  engaging  in  the  carrying  trade  of  Koro- 
pean  wars,  (whether  by  chartering  or  selling  vessels  to  the  belligerents,)  which  our 
(lovernmeiit  so  strenuoiiHly  ((mtended  tor  at  the  period  of  the  C'rimeau  war,  under  tlic 
administration  of  I'resideiit  Pierce. 


'American  NiMitrality :  its  IlonorabloPast ;  its  Expedient  I'uture. 
lioston,  Ibtil):  pp.  Oo-el. 


By  Giiorge  Bcniis. 


'ff    ' 


COUNTER   CASE    OF   GREAT   BRITAIN. 


405 


itatioii,  Avlio 
riUiiii,  points 
tis  is  interior 


land  (on  wliicli 
irlicv  date  than 
.ions  couibiiiiiii; 
ids,  I  can  name 
imr  (»\vn. 
;han  the  Anicii- 
Huvice  of  a  tor- 
fje  or  eonlrarl  to 
Liitlior  of  wliiuli 
ract  (section  "ii 
lotlicr  iM'i'son  to 
r  ou  neutral  soil 

mieniberod  tliat 

latinj;  AnxMiiau 

)n  in  the  I'nitfd 

to  enlist,  have 

1,  in  prohibitini; 
for  forci;;n  wai- 
;in}{  the  suli.ji'its 
IS  the  Aini'iicau 
lat  if  the  riiitcd 
nstance,  are  tu'l- 
;  British  siilijccts 
ice,  in  like  iiiau- 

ish  .act  over  tlm 

■njiajiinji  in  wm- 

ed  States  law  is 

ates,"  (except  in 

rci!,  as  alrcaily 

xception,  as  liv 

\v  scheme.  I    It 

s  of  the  I'liitcil 

service — in  fact, 

led  they  do  not 

:\<;ainst  riiitiil 

.cri[itions  of  )k1- 

as  a  ]ireveiitivo 
tioH  ol'anv  vts- 

have  enlistid  oi' 

n-izin,;;-  the  stu))- 
t  hey  now  si  ami, 
hrinjfs  it  uutUi' 

»f  the  British  act 
laster  to  t;.l<ci>u 
in  a  forei;>ii  i'd- 
ijrer.    Itfnitlici' 

ncurred  as  alnive 

exoniplar  in  oav 

itinio  iiontrality 
IS  a  clear  Miipiii; 
imrt  or  xlorcliij'" 

tnte,  and  wliiili 
H  trade  of  Kimd- 
cuts,)  which  iiiir 
II  war,  under  the 


y  George  Bonis. 


ii' 


G.  Til  Ihc  sixth  place,  the  British  statute  contains  those  inueh-belahored  words,  "  ecpiip. 
fnriiish,  tit  out,  or  arm  ;"  winle  our  own  only  denounces  "the  tittinj;'  out  and  arminji"  Ui 
ship  of  war  for  belli>;erent  u.ses— a  distinction  between  "r»/"  and  ''((//rf"  which  saved  U8 
fr(nii  having  Laird's  iron-clads  let  loose  against  us  in  .Septemlier,  iHi;}. 

7.  Scrruthlj/,  the  Ibitish  foreijin-enlistnu'iit  act  is  more  comiireliensive  than  our  own, 
in  using  after  tlio  clause  "equip,"  &c.,  "or  attempt  to  eciuiji,"  «Vc.,  the  phraseology  "with 
intent,  or  in  order,  that  such  ship  be  employed,"  ifcc.  Our  statute  stojis  short  "  with 
iiiffH/,"  while  the  British,  by  adding  "  i//  order  //*«/,'' helps  to  simplify  a  tronblesomo 
i|ncstion  of  whose  the  intent  must  be — wlu^ther  the  e([uii>per's  or  the  belligerent 
stitt(!'s  for  whoso  use  the  vessel  is  equipping. 

8.  Eiffhlhlii,  the  British  statute  has  a  wider  scope  than  the  American,  and  so  .seems 
more  etfectively  neutral,  in  using  after  the  words  "  colony,  province,"  Ac.  the  terms, 
"or  of  any  pernoii  ejercixinfi,  or  mmtmiiig  to  extreixe,  autj  power.i  of  fiorenimeiil," \v.  The 
ijnvcrnment  of  Jetlcirson  Davis  an<l  his  .associates,  for  example,  both  in  the  .Mexiindra 
and  the  I'ampero  proceedings,  was  set  forth  under  tliese  terms  of  the  foi-eign-enlist- 
nicnt  act. 

i).  yinthh),  that  the  British  statute  is  more  sweeping  ami  more  thoroughly  neutral 
tlian  our  own,  in  enacting  various  prohibitions  against  augnuMitin^,  the  armament  of 
foreign  ships  of  war  which  come  into  port  already  arnunl,  but  which  have  occasion  to 
refit  or  add  to  their  warlik<(  equipment.  By  the  British  act  (section  H)  no  foreign  ship 
(it  war  «/ «//,  whetluu' belonging  to  a  power  rt/^fcrtcc  or  at  war,  is  allowed  to  .•idd  to  tu" 
vary  its  warlike  armauujnt  in  a  British  ]K>rt ;  while,  by  our  own  statute,  (section  .">.) 
the  modified  prohibition  against  adding  t«»  the  armament  of  such  it  ship  of  war  is  only 
li'Vclcd  against  a  ship  of  a  bellii/ereiit  power.  That  is,  vhe  American  statute  does  not 
pri'tciul  to  interfere  at  all  w  ith  increasing  the  number  of  guns,  Ac.,  of  a  foreign  ship 
(if  war  at  a  time  when  tli»^  government  to  which  the  ship  lielongs  in  at  jwiice,  but  oidy 
inohibits  such  tuigmentation  when  the  ship  is  the  reprvxer.tatice  of  a  bcHiyeniil  poirer. 
The  British  act,  on  the  other  hand,  dire*  ts  its  prohiiiition  equally  against  such  war- 
likt!  c(|nipuu'nt  in  time  of  pejice  as  well  as  in  time  of  war.' 

111.  Jii  the  tenth  and  '  ixt  place,  the  British  statute  is  more  severe  in  its  penalties 
tbioughont  than  thv  .vmerican. 

It  is  true  that  the  American  act  (iontain.s  two  clauses  not  inchuled  in 
the  Ikitish  act  of  ISIO.  chiuses  TO  and  il,  (tomnianly  known  us  the 
"bonding  clauses."^    With  repaid  to  those,  T^lv.  IJeniis  reniarics: 

To  my  own  appreciat!>ni  both  ot^  these  "  boiuling"  daii.ses,  as  they  are  called,  had 
most  of  their  neutral  virtc  •  takiMi  out  of  them  when  Congress  made  them  appliciible — 
(1.)  To  "  v<'ssels  belonginj,  wholly  or  in  part  to  eili-ens  of  the  I'nited  iV^«^■.>(,"  thereby 
leaving  foreif/nerx  at  liberty  to  clear  nnnentrally  armed  sliips,  (see  luoject  of  the  ac', 
.\nn.  Con.,  lHUi-'17,  p.  477,  sec.  I ;)  (•<>.)  When  they  limited  the  bond  so  as  only  to  pre- 
vent "(-((c/*  «(<;■( j/-.s"  from  cruising  or  eommiiling  hostilities,  insteail  of  making  the  liotul 
!;uin(l  against  belligen-nt  (Mnploymciit  of  the  vesstd  by  ''ani/  jxruon  to  whooi  tUeij  (such 
owners)  majisellor  pretend  to  sill  siwh  rensel.''  (Ann.  Cong.,  IHI()-'17,  \t.  t?"^.  sec.  '-i:)  and 
Ci)  by  requiring  that  any  vessel,  to  l»e  subject  to  (htention,  must  liave  on  l)()ard"a 
mriji)  prineipoltji  cousistiHij  of  arms  and  ninnitionK  of  n'ar,"  thus  letting  go  at  laige  a  ves- 
sel armed  to  the  "  teeth,"  and  "  manifestly  Itnilt  for  warlike  purposes,"  provided  she 
uldiits  the  precaution  of  taking  no  xmh  eanjo  with  her,  and  is  owned  byforeiyncrs. 

(Iroat  stress  is  laid  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States  on  the  ci^jihtU 
section  of  the  act  of  Congress.  "The  tribunal  of  arbitration  will  also 
oltscrve,"  it  states,  "thtit  the  most  important  section  of  the  American 
act  is  omitted  in  the  IJritish  act,  namely,  the  poiccr  conferred  Ini  the  eiijhth 
miio)i  on  the  Ilreenfirc  to  take pohseaa ion  of  and  detain  a  nhip  n  'hontjii- 
'liei(tl  process  and  to  une  the  militarif  and  naval  forces  of  the  (lorirnment, 
if  iieeessary.'^  This  implies  tinit  the  Executive  is  empowered  to  detain 
any  ship;  but  on  turniufi  to  the  act  it.self  it  will  be  .seen  thsit  this  is  by 
110  luciuis  tiie  <'ase.  The  eiohtli  section  provides  that  "  in  every  r.isr  in 
which  a  vessel  shall  be  litted  out  and  tirnied^  or  attempted  to  be  fitted 
out  and  armed,  or  in  whicli  the  lorce  of  any  vessel  of  war,  ernivser,  i)r 
other  armed  vessel,  shall  be  increased  or  anf>inented,  or  in  which  any 
military  expedition  or  enterprise  shall  be  bejfun  or  set  on  foot,  contrary 
to  the  provisions  juul  prohibitions  of  this  tict,  and  in  every  case  of  the 

'It  may  be  doubted  whether  tlio  Interpretation  placed  by  Mr.  Beinison  the  British 
statute  of  isil),  under  this  ninth  "head,"  is  correct.  lu  all  other  re.spect.i  his  observa- 
tions are  accurate  and  well  foiuided. 

'lor  the  acts,  sec  Appendix,  vol.  iii,  pp.  'ilMl. 


3l 


406 


TREATY    OF    WASTIINGTOX. 


■: 


capturo  of  a  ship  or  vessel  within  the  jurisdiction  or  protection  of  tlie 
United  States  as  before  defined,  and  in  every  ease  in  wliicli  any  process 
issuin<>:  out  of  any  court  of  tlie  United  States  shall  bo  disobeyed  or 
resisted  l>y  any  person  or  persons  having  the  custody  of  any  vessel  ot 
■war,  cruiser,  or  other  armed  vessel  of  any  foreij^n  prince  or  state,  or  of 
any  colony,  district,  or  i»eople,  or  of  any  subjects  or  citizens  of  any  lor- 
eign  prince  or  state,  or  of  any  colony,  district,  or  peo|)le,  in  every  ease 
it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  President  of  the  United  States,  or  such  otiier 
l>erson  as  he  shall  have  eaipo\vere<l  for  that  puipose,  to  employ  such 
part  of  the  land  or  naval  forces  of  the  United  States,  or  the  militia 
thereof,  for  the  purpose  of  takiufj  possession  of  and  detaininff  any  siuli 
ship  or  vessel,  with  her  prize  or  prizes,  if  anj',  in  order  to  the  execution 
of  the  |)rohibitions  aiul  penalties  of  this  act,  and  to  the  restcuin;,' 
[151]  the  prize  or  prizes  in  the  cases  in  which  *restoration  sLall  liavt- 
been  adjudged,  and  also  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the  eairv- 
ing  on  any  such  expedition  or  enterprise  from  the  territories  or  Jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Unite<l  Stivtes  against  the  territoiies  or  dominions  of  any 
foreign  prince  or  state,  or  of  any  colony,  district,  or  people,  with  wliom 
the  United  States  are  at  peace." 

^'(iither  the  Alabama  nor  Florida,  luu*  any  of  the  other  vessels  com- 
plained of,  was  litted  out  and  arnu^d,  or  attempted  to  be  fitted  out  ami 
arme<l,  within  IJritish  Jurisdiction  :  and,  if  there  had  been  a  similar  jtro- 
vision  in  tlu^  British  act  of  rarliament,  it  would  not,  therefore,  have 
been  applicable.  The  section,  wliich  is  taken  from  the  act  of  17!i4. 
(■section  7,)  was  evidently  intended  to  einible  the  i'resideiit  to  repress 
the  arming  of  French  i)rivateers  in  American  ports  and  their  violations 
of  neutrality  in  Anuuican  waters,  and  di«l  not  contemplate  any  inter- 
ference with  nuarmi'd  vessels  except  for  the  ])uriK)se  of  restoring  prizes 
brought  into  the  i)orts  of  the  United  States  after  having  been  caiitnred 
within  their  Jurisdiction. 

The  American  law  was  indeed  purposely  restricted  in  its  ojieratioii. 
AVhen  the  act  of  1817  was  introdutuHl  into  Congress  it  was  entitled  »  A 
bill  to  prevent  citizens  of  the  United  States  from  selling  vessels  of  war 
to  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  any  foreign  power,  and  nu)re  etfectually  to 
l)revent  the  arming  and  eriuipping  vessels  of  war  in  the  ports  of  the 
United  States,  intcMdcd  to  be  used  again;-  nations  in  amity  with  tiic 
United  States,"  and  the  first  section  woulu  have  prohibited  the  fittiiiir 
out  and  arming  by  American  citizens  of  "  any  private  ship  or  vessel  of 
war,  to  sell  the  said  vessel,  or  contract  for  the  sale  of  the  said  vessel  to 
be  delivered  in  the  United  States,  or  elsewhere,  to  the  jiurchaser,"  witli 
intent  to  ciuise,  &c. ;  but  this  section  was  struck  out  by  the  Senate,  ami 
the  title  of  the  bill  changed.  The  act,  as  it  was  passed,  containeil  no 
such  prohibition. 

Xotwithstaiulitig  the  fact  that  the  British  act  of  1819  is  of  greater 
stringency  than  the  Anu'rican  act,  Lonl  Kusseli  was  willing,  during  tlm 
civil  war,  to  consider  what  amendments  could  be  introduced  int«)  it  it 
th(5  United  States  Government  had  given  any  encouragement  to  a  sii;,' 
gestiou  he  made  for  a  Joint  revision  of  the  two  laws. 

On  the  2()t\\  of  Noviimber,  18(}2,  :Mr.  Adams  solicited  "  a  more  effect- 
ive prevention  of  any  repetition"  of  occurrences  like  those  of  which  bo 
complained.*     Lord  Kusseli  replied  December  11),  1802  :* 

As  ie<j;iinla  your  (Icinaiiil  for  u  niorn  cft'cctivo  prevention,  for  t\u\  future,  of  flic  lit- 
tirr^  out  of  hucIi  vessels  iii  British  jtorts,  1  linve  tlie  lienor  to  inform  yon  tiiat  Il'i 
MJcHty's  y,()verninent,  after  eonsuUation  with  the  hiw-ollieers  of  tlie  ('rowii,  an  "' 
opinion  tiiat  certain  itmendinonts  nii^ht  be  introtlncud  into  the  f<»roi^n-eulistlncllt  ait. 

'  Appendix  to  United  JStutea  Case,  vol.  iii,  p.  73.  *  Ibid.,  p.  W. 


^Tnff'^ 


COUNTER    CASE    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


407 


wliich,  if  siuictioiKid  V)y  Parliament,  wou'kI  liavo  tlio  ellect  «i'  jjivinji;  jjivati'V  powi'v  to 
till'  I'Xi'ciitivc  to  prevent  tlie  const  nici  ion,  in  Uriti.sli  jiorts,  of  sliips  iletained  for  thense 
of  lielli;;(U'entN.  Hut  Her  Majesty's  ffovernment  consider  tliat,  liefore  snbniittin;;  any 
|)r()|iosals(»f  tiiat  sort  to  Parliament,  it  would  lie  desirahli'  tliat  tliey  slionld  jn-evionsly 
toinmnnicate  with  the  (Jovernment  of  the  United  States,  and  ascertain  whether  tliat 
liovcrnint-nt  is  willin;;  to  maiie  similar  alterations  in  it-sown  foiei;r?i-eidistnient  a(;t. 
and  tiiat  the  annMidHu-nts, like  the  «)ri<5inal  statute,  should, as  it  were, proceed^***/'/ jxw*" 
ill  both  countries. 

I  shall  accordingly  li«  ready  to  confer  at  any  time  with  yon,  and  to  listen  to  any 
sufjjjcstions  wliidi  you  may  havi^  to  nialie  by  which  the  ISritish  foreign-enlistment  act 
and  the  eorrespoiidiii<;  statute  of  the  United  States  may  be  made  more  elhcieiit  for  their 
purpose. 

I\[r.  Adams  did  not  ff'wo  nu.v  aiiswor  to  this  in  writing,  but.  on  the  lltli 
of  Febinary,  l.S(>3,  Lord  Kus.sc'll  infornuMl  Lord  Lyons: 

I  had  a  converK.ation  a  few  days  a<;o  with  Jf r.  AdaiiiH  on  the  subject  of  the  Ahibama 

It  did  not  a|>|iear  that  his  GovermnenI  desired  to  carry. on  tlie  controversy  on  this 
>nli.iect  from  Wasliinjitoii  ;  they  rather  left  the  condnct  of  the  ai;;ument  to  Mr.  Adams. 

On  a  second  point,  however,  namely,  wlietiier  tlie  law  with  respect  to  ei|iiipment  ot' 
vessels  for  hostihijnirposes  mi<;lit  be  innii'ovc  I.Mr.  Adams  said  that  Jiistiovernnient  were 
iv:i(ly  to  listen  to  any  propositions  ]U'i'  Majesty's  government  had  to  make,  but  they 
liid  not  see  how  their  own  law  on  this  subject  could  be  improved. 

I  said  that  tile  cabinet  had  conu!  to  a  similar  conclusion  ;  so  that  no  further  pwi- 
C('edinjj;s  need  be  taktMi  at  prestsni  on  this  siiiiject.' 

On  the  27th  of  March  Lord  Ifiissi'll  toM  Lord  Lyons  that  the  siihjecs 
bad  been  ayaiu  nientionetL  "■  \Vilh  respect  to  the  hiws  itself,  Mr.  Adaint 
said,  either  it  was  sntlicient  for  the  ptirpose  ol"  neutrality,  and  then  let 
tlie  liritish  government  enforce  it ;  or  it  was  insiitlicient,  and  t  lien  let 
tile  IJritish  {government  apply  to  Parliament  to  amend  it.  1  said  that 
the  cabinet  were  of  opinion  that  the  law  was  sntlicient ;  but  that  h'j;al 
evidence  conld  not  always  be  i)ro(;nred."''' 

The  revision  of  the  IJritish  act  of  l.sLS,  upon  the  n'ciommemhition  of 
the  neutrality  laws  commission,  lias  already  been  noticed  in  I'art  IL 
All  attempt  was  made  in  1800  to  revise  the  American  act,  bat  in  a  very 
(litlerent  spirit. 

On  the  11th  of  July,  ISOO,  a  week  after  the  Fenian  raid  on  Cjinada,  a 
resolution  was  passed  in  the  Ifouse  of  llepreseiitatives  i'  tniciino-  the 
C'oiimiittee  on  Forei^iU  Atfairs  to  iminire  into  the  expedien  ■''  rcportih;; 
a  hill  for  the  repeal  of  the  act  of  ISI 8;  and,  in  i'ompliamx' \v  ili  this  in 
struction,  the  (Munmittee  pn\sented  a  n'port  on  the  L'.'ith  of  .Inly.  ;iccoii 
|>aiiied  by  a  bill  which  was  accepted  and  pas.setl  on  the  following  da^  i>y  a 
iiiianimons  vote. 

Tlu'  report  and  bill  are  "iven  in  the  Appendix,  vol.  v,  ]).  .'M'J. 

The  following  extracts  from  th<^  report  will  show  the  views  of  nmri- 
tiiiie  neutrality  entertained  by  the  conimitte<',  and  indorsed  by  the 
House: 


Tiio  American  Ntatuto  is  not  deinandod  liy  lutornntional  or  natural  law.  Aecordiiiy 
to  these  systems  neutralitv  is  inipai'ti!i1it,v,  A  state,  in  virtue  of  its  sovereijiuly. 
[l.Vi]  has  an  inherent  and  "indefeasible  ri;;iit  to  remain  nentralas  bet  ween  other  states 
at  war.  This  neutrality  implies, on  one  part,  impartiality ;  on  the  otlier,  inviola* 
liility.  The  state  cannot  intlict,  and  is  not  bouinl  to  snlVer  injury.  It  ;s  a  temporary 
•  ••lulition,  incident  tothe  situation,  ami  not  necessarily  periminent.  An  a'  (iMn]it  to  impose 
n|ioii  a  |)eople  permnnent  neutrality,  eH]iecially  if  tliat  word  is  interpi.'teil  to  mean,  as 
ill  liar  le;;islation  it  tloes,  an  estrangenient,  altHcisHlon,  and  isolation  of  the  statt-  from 
I'Mier  iii.tions,  is  opposed  to  tlic  true  principles  of  piiblii;  morality  and  law.  'I'o  make 
siicii  (I  system  itcriiianent  is  iiii]iracticable,  It  can  lie  Justilied  only  liy  a  rejjard  to  the 
'•iiiitorary  comiitiuii  of  states  by  whieii  it  is  on:ict"il.  Tlie  hij^hivst  iuteriMts  ol  eivili- 
zition  demand  tliat  the  liberties  and  ri;;hts  of  neutrals  should  be  extended,  and  the 

'  See  v(d.  i,  p.  fitiS.    The  correspondence  will  bu  fuund  uiuo  m  the  Appeudi.x  to  the 
Itiitish  Case,  vol.  iv,  No.  1,  p.  4H. 
•.\lipeudix  to  Ih'itlNh  Case,  vol.  iv,  No.  8,  p,  ij, 


'-':l 
'] 


St.- 


r 


i 


408 


TRKATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


privilofjos  and  powors  of  sL.ites  at  vriir  diminislied.  Upon  the  recognition  of  tills  ]niii- 
oii>li'  (li'iM-mls  tlm  j)r(»<i;rt!ss  of  iiation.s,  tlit;  iii(l<'|M'ndfMoc  oi  states,  tile  lilnTti«'s  oi'  tin; 
l>('<>lf!t'.  To  rest  rift  tlic  rijilils  of  iifuti'al»>  and  cnlarjje  the  power  of  !ielli<;erciits  is 
to  icjcct  the  ttaeliiii'j;s  (d"  Clirisfianily  aisd  tlic  improvements  of  (;ivilizatioii,  and  to 
return  to  flif  docfriiu's  of  uncivilized  nations  and  the  )>ractiees  of  barbaric  i)eo](lcs. 

In  revicwinjf  the  statute  of  Irtlr'  we  cannot  escape  the  conclusion  that  it  is  fonndtd 
upon  an  opposite  and  unsound  jjhilosophy;  that  it  disrejjards  the  inalienable  ri;;lits(it' 
I lu- people  of  all  nations;  that  it  was  inipoH4!d  upon  the  country  hj' conslileratiniis 
atfci'tiny;  exclusively  tiie  political  inten^sts  of  other  nations;  that  it  criminally 
ii'strains  the  rljj;hts  of  nations  at  peace  for  the  benefit  of  those  at  war ;  that  it  was 
intended  to  perpetuate  the  supriMiiacy  of  favortsd  nations  on  the  sea.  It  properly  be- 
loiii^s  to  anothiu'  a;^i%  and  is  not  of  us  or  for  us. 

It  was  in  deference  to  the  comlitlous  then  inii>osed  that  American  lej^islators  thoiij;lit 
it  exitedit'Ut  to  divest  this  country  of  rijihts  enjoyed  by  t)thers.  Indispensable  to  tlie 
development  of  the  strenj^th  of  republican  Institutions  and  the  American  .States,  and  to 
inllict  upon  tlieir  iieople  tlie  irreparable  injury  of  de])ri vln<^  them  of  i)rivilet;es  neces- 
sary to  their  private  luosiierlty  and  the  preservation  of  the  I'berties  of  their  race.  It 
is  ineredliile  that  it  should  have  been  thou^rJit  necessary  permanently  to  suppress  as 
crimes  on  the  part  of  our  citizens  tvansaetious  whicdi  are  not  jinnlslmd  as  crimes  elsc- 
wheri',  ftu-  the  bem-lit  of  nations  inimical,  if  not  liostlle,  to  ns,  auda<;ainst  states  strii^- 
^linjj  for  infle[»en<b'ni'e  and  lllierty  In  enuilation  of  our  own  exanijde. 

No:  these  concessions  to  the  peace  of  the  world  were  made  for  the  time  when  they 
well-  enacted.  It  was  an  opportum;  and  patriotur  jHilicy.  Tlie  i>reservation  of  tiic 
republic  was  the  lirst  duty  of  our  fathers,  as  it  is  now  ours.  It  is  destlnei'..  if  sustained, 
to  lie  the  f;rand  dist.irber  of  tht;  rlj^ht  divine  of  kiii};s,  the  njodtd  of  strug<;liug  natiuiis, 
the  last  hope  of  the  in(lt!i>endenee  of  states  and  id'  rational  'Iberty. 

To  the  exa!n)de  and  prosjtect  of  our  fathers  we  still  adhere.  IJutlf  the  time  hascer.n 
for  which  they  waited  and  worked,  or  whenever  it  shall  come,  in  which  the  ii;;hts  ol" 
tlie  eountiy  can  l>e  asserted,  its  inteiests  juotected  without  departure  from  tie  estab- 
lished policy  of  our  fjovernment,  which  wc;  indorse  without  iu-sitatlon,  and  to  whicii 
we  adhere  without  reservation.it  is  our  opinion  that  the  oppiirtunlty  shouhl  not  l)e 
lost.  And  W(!  therefore  reeonniuMid,  as  Incident  to  this  duty  and  this  day,  a  fhorouf;h 
revision  of  the  statutes  afl'ectiiiij  our  national  relations  with  other  governments,  ami 
the  enactment. of  such  laws  as  will  limit  its  prohlliitious  and  restrict!  ..is  to  those  im- 
posed by  the  laws  of  nations,  the  stipulation  of  treaties,  the  recljtrocal  legislation 
of  othi'r  governments,  tlm  freedom  of  commerce,  the  Indepeudence  of  states,  the 
interests  of  eivillzjition.  and  that  will  curl)  the  power  of  ualionsut  war,  and  streiigtheii 
and  extenil  the  rights  of  those  at  pea(;e. 

.*>iiips  are  articles  of  ccunmerei!;  they  ar<>  in  no  liberal  or  just  8ens«^  contraband  of 
war,  nor  are  the  materials  of  which  they  are  made.  The  recent  Improvemeiits  In  naval 
architei'ture  art;  such  as  to  diminish  tlm  distinctions  lietween  nierchant-vessi'ls  and 
>lilps  of  war.  anil  to  facilitate  thi^  adai)tation  of  one  to  the  purposes  of  the  other.  A 
strong-luiilt,  swift-sailing  merchant  vessel  or  steamer  could  be  made  with  a  single  giiii 
an  elleitlve  war  vessel.  To  prohibit  our  citizens  from  building  such  ves.sels  or  selliii;j; 
material  fur  their  constrnetlou  at  a  time  when  all  nations,  exeejit  luir  own,  aie  at  war, 
because  llicy  may  be  enijdoy'd  1',,;  lioslih^  i»urposes  by  foreign  subjects,  or  to  deiiiaiid 
i)i>nds  In  double  the  amount  ot  vessel,  cargo,  and  armament,  and  to  require  otliccrs  ol' 
the  customs  to  .seize  and  detain  them  whenever  cargo,  crew,  or  "  otlu-r  circumstances'' 
shall  render  proltalde  a  suspicion  that  they  are  to  be  so  used,  and  where  American  citi- 
zens are  part  owners  only,  is  substantially  to  deprive  them  of  their  rights  to  engage  in 
the  construction  of  vessels  or  to  fnrni.sh  materials  therefor.  Considering  the  limitless 
eapaeily  of  the  country  in  this  respect.  It  Is  a  i>iivilege  that  ought  not  tt»  be  surieiiiU  ltd 
except  upon  grounds  of  absolute  necessitj'  and  Justice — (Appendix  to  British  Case, 
vol.  V.  i>p.  :i4T,  ;$4H.) 

The  ])riiici|)nl  alterations  proposed  in  that  bill  were  to  make  it  deiir 
that  "littiiiy:  out"  a  ves.sel  for  ii  bellifiereiit  wa.s  not  prohibited,  and  tlint 
there  must  l)e  "filtinji;  out  and  armiiif;;''  to  repeal  the  clause.s  ktiowii  as 
"bondifiji  dause.s;"  to  insert  a  <leelaratiofi  that  the  act  should  not  "pro 
iiibit  eiti/.en.sot  the  United  States  from  selling  vessels,  shi|)s,  or  steatiieis 
built  within  the  limits  thereof,  or  materials  or  munitions  of  war  tlie 
;irowth  or  i)roduet  of  the  same  to  inhabitants  of  other  eountries  not  at 
war  with  the  United  ytates;"  and  to  repeal  the  clauses  makinji  it  an 
otten.se  to  begin  or  set  on  foot,  or  provide  or  prepare  the  i.ieans  for  any 
militaiy  expedition  or  enterprise  to  be  csirried  on  from  the  limits  of  tlie 
United  States  sigainst  any  foreign  country  at  peace  with  the  United 
States,  (the  clause  under  which  the  Feumu  leaders  were  prosecuted,) 


COUNTER   CASE    OF    GREAT   BRITAIN. 


409 


Wf 


n  of  this  )iriii- 

liiTtics  of  th(! 

In'lli<;<'rciits  is 

zatitiii,  and  tu 

ric  peoples. 

it  is  roimded 

iiiilde  lijriitsot' 

L'cnisideratioMs 

it    eiiiniiially 

;  tliat  it  \v;is 

properly  bi:- 

ijitoi>-  tlimijilit 
•iisalde  to  till! 
States,  and  to 
ivilejres  neiTS- 
tlieir  race.  It 
[o  sii|>press  as 
IS  eiinies  elsr- 
it  states  still;;- 

lie  when  tlicy 
vatioii  of  tlif 
"..  if  sustained, 
<;Hug  iiatiuiis, 

time  lias  ecr.i, 
tlie  ri;;lits  (if 
>lil  tie  estali- 
antl  to  whicli 
slioiilil  not  1)0 
y,  a  llion)ii;ih 
I'Minieiits,  ami 
s  to  tliose  iiii- 
L-al  lefiislatiiiii 
of  states,  the 
11(1  strengthen 

ontralMtid  of 
lei'its  ill  iiav.il 
t-vessids  and 
I  lie  other.  A 
1  a  siii;;le  iJilll 
.sels  or  selliii!; 
11,  aie  at  war, 
or  to  demand 
re  otiieers  of 
reiimstaiiees'' 
American  citi- 
s  to  eiiijaj;!'  in 
;  the  limitless 
le  siirieiidcrrd 
IJritish  Case, 

aUe  it  cli'iir 
m1,  and  tlijit 
.s  Uiiown  as 
tl  not  "pro 
orstcaiiit'is 
of  war  the 
rios  not  at 
akiiifi'  it  an 
aiis  lor  any 
iinits  of  llio 
the  United 
>ro>.eciitc'd,) 


and  which  authorize  the  Pres;«;ont  to  employ  the  military  or  naval  for(;es 
ot'tlie  reiMiblic  to  prevent  siicdi  expeditions. 

Tiie  bill  did  not  become  a  law,  as  the  Senate  refused  to  pass  it  with- 
out consideration,  and  refeiTe<l  it  to  tlie  Senate  Committee  on  Foreijjii 
Relations;  and  Congress  adjourned  without  the  committee  having  nuido 
a  report. 

The  immediate  effect  of  the  bill,  if  passed,  would  have  been  to  facili- 
tate the  dispat(!h  from  the  ports  of  the  United  States  of  vessels  to  be 
employed  by  Chili  aud  Peru  in  the  war  they  were  then  carrying  ou 
against  Spain. 


[153] 


*ANXEX  (C.) 


POSITION  AND  DUTIES  OF  THE  LAW-OFFICERS  OF  THE  CROWN 

IN  ENGLAND. 


As  it  has  been  necessary  to  refer  from  time  to  time  to  the  opinions 
given  by  the  British  law  otticers,  it  may  be  convenient  to 
explain  more  precisely  than  has  been  hitherto  done  what  is 
tlu'ir  position  as  the  legal  advisers  ,)f  Her  Majesty's  government. 

In  England  there  is  no  ministry  of  justice  or  similar  department  of 
state  to  which  recourse  can  be  had  by  other  departments  when  matters 
are  brought  beforj  them  on  which  a  decision  involving  a  question  of 
law  is  recpiired. 

T''.is  want  is  sui)idied  by  the  appointment  of  three law-otVuHMs,  as  they 
are  called.  Two  of  these — the  attorney-general  and  solicitor-general — 
iire  barristers  or  advocates,  with  seats  in  the  House  of  Coatmoiis,  who 
have  been  selected  b.v  the  ministry  of  the  day,  and  who  leavt'  otlice  when 
that  administration  is  changed.  They  o(;cupy,  therefore,  a  double  posi- 
tion— as  theconlidential  advisers  of  the  government  on  legal  subjects, 
and  as  the  natural  defenders  and  expouiulers  in  Psiiiiament  of  the  ])ro- 
ceedings  which  the  government  may  adopt  u[)on  their  recomnu'iulation. 

The  third  law-otti(!er — the  Queen's  advocate — is  a  permanent  otUcial, 
and  does  not  leave  oltice  on  the  resignation  of  the  ministry  by  ;vhom  ho 
was  ai>pointed.  It  has  been  usual  to  select  for  this  odice  a  barrister 
who  has  a  special  knowledge  of  civil  and  international  law;  and  he  is 
tu  conse(iuence  more  particularly  the  legal  adviser  of  the  foieign  otUce. 
Like,  however,  the  attorney-general  and  solicitor-general,  he  has  private 
practice  as  an  advocate,  and  has  generally  numerous  <luties  devolving 
upon  him  in  connection  with  ecclesiastical  and  civil  jurisdiction. 

The  law  officers  have  no  bureau  or  otlice  set  apart  for  their  use,  and 
no  regular  staff"  of  assistants  or  archives.  As  the  (Queen's  advocate 
therefore  frequently  possesses,  from  the  permanent  character  of  his  ai)- 
pointuuuit,  a  knowledge  of  ofticial  precedents  with  which  the  other  law- 
otlicrrs  may  not  be  familiar,  he  generally  acts  as  their  draughtsman  in  the 
|»reparation  of  reiwrts.  Ui)  to  the  date  of  Sir  John  Harding's  retire- 
ment the  (Queen's  advocate's  name  stood  first  iu  the  patent  or  letter  of 
appointment  under  which  tiie  law-ottkers  act;  and  he  had,  therefore, 
precetUuico  over  the  other  two.  The  result  was  that  papers  ou  which 
an  opiuiou  was  requested  were  sent  to  hii    first,  aud,  when  he  had  pe- 


'    I 


410 


TREATY     OF    WASHINGTON. 


?  €; 


rused  and  written  liis  minute  npon  them,  were  passed  on  to  tlie  attor- 
ney-general, and  afterward  by  liiui  to  tbe  solicitor-jjeneral.  In  all  cases 
of  importance,  and  particularly  when  time  is  pressing',  it  is  usual  for  tlio 
three  law ollicers  to  meet  and  confer  together,  after  they  have  all  read  the 
papers,  the  appointment  for  the  purpose  being  usually  made  by  tbe 
senior  in  raidv  of  the  three. 

Uaving  thus  shown  the  position  occupied  by  tbe  law-oflicers  toward 
each  other,  and  toward  the  government,  it  remains  to  explain  the  iiiaii- 
i)er  in  which  ])apers  are  referred  to  them,  taking  us  an  example  questions 
arising  un<ler  the  foreign-eidistnuMJt  act  of  1811). 

By  the  ath,  Oth,  and  7th  clauses  of  that  act  tbe  oflicers  of  customs 
and  excise  were  empowered  to  seize  and  detain  vessels  in  case  of  con- 
travention of  the  act,  in  tbe  same  manner  as  vessels  were  seized  and 
detained  under  the  laws  for  tbe  protection  of  the  revenues  of  customs 
and  excise,  or  tbe  laws  of  t  ;i  le  and  navigation. 

The  duties  of  tbe  ollicers  oi '  istoms  being  i)rinuirily  for  tbe  collection 
and  prot(^ction  of  the  revenue,  the  collectors  or  other  bead  ollicers  of 
the  customs  at  the  ports  are  under  the  authority  of  tbe  lords  coininis- 
sioners  of  Her  Majesty's  treasury,  of  which  department  the  board  of 
customs  in  Loiulon  is  a  branch  oflice.  When,  therefore,  the  consul  of  a 
foreign  belligerent  power  has  a  complaint  to  make  at  a  i)ort  that  the 
foreign-enlistment  act  is  being  contravened  to  the  prejndice  of  his 
country,  he  proceeds  to  tbe  collector  of  customs,  and  lays  before  him  the 
evidence  he  may  have  to  adduce  in  support  of  the  charge.  This  e.i- 
dence  is  generally  in  tbe  form  of  written  statements,  or  allidavits, 
drawn  up  in  proper  shape,  and  sworn  to,  or  solemnly  declared  to  be 
true,  before  a  magistrate.  Copies  or  duplicates  of  these  attidavits  will 
then  be  forwarded  by  tbe  customs  collector  to  the  board  of  customs  iii 
London,  and  by  the  consul  to  tbe  diidomatic  representative  ol'  his 
country. 

.  In  Jjondon  the  board  of  customs  will  transmit  the  affidavits  to  the 
treasury,  and  probably  also  take  tbe  opinion  of  their  departmental  lef;al 
adviser  upon  them.  Some  little  time  is  consumed  in  tbe  mere  transmis- 
sion of  the  papers,  tbe  custom-house  being  situated  ou  tbe  Thames,  be- 
low London  Bridge,  and  the  treasury  in  Whitehall,  near  tbe  Houses  of 
Parliament,  tbe  distance  between  tbe  two  being  about  three  miles. 

Tbe  treasury  will  next  send  tbe  i)ai)ers  to  tbe  foreign  office,  and  ask 
instructions.  In  the  meanwhile  the  foreign  minister  will  have 
[lo4]  received  the  afficlavits  and  dispatch  inclosing  them  from  tbe*<*oii- 
8ul,  and  will  likewise  bring  or  send  them  to  tbe  foreign  oilice. 
The  sciuetary  of  state  for  foreign  affairs  imnuHliately  directs  them  to 
be  transmitted  to  tbe  law-officers  for  their  oi>iuion.  This  is  done  l)y 
writing  a  letter  addressed  to  the  three  law-officers,  and  requesting  their 
opinion  upon  tbe  papers  at  their  earliest  convenience.  This  letter  is 
taken  to  the  senior  law-officer,  either  to  his  chambers  or  to  the  court  iii 
which  be  may  be,  or  sometimes  to  liis  private  residence;  be,  when  ho 
bas  read  and  considered  the  pai»ers,  either  sends  them  on  to  his  col- 
league next  in  order  of  precedence,  (by  whom,  in  that  case,  they  are 
transmitted  to  tbe  third,)  or  makes  an  appointment  for  a  meeting  to 
deliberate  on  tbe  subject,  in  the  mean  time  retaining  tbe  papers  in  his 
own  hands.  Wheii  all  the  law-officers  have  had  tbe  opportunity  of  suf- 
iiciently  considering  tbe  papers,  they  consider,  in  consultation  together, 
the  draught  report,  (prepared  usually,  as  previously  stated,  by  the 
Queen's  advocate,  and  a  letter  is  drawn  up,  fair  copied,  and  signed  by 
them,  containing  their  opiaion.  This  letter  is  sent  to  tlie  foreign  oltice, 
and  the  secretary  of  state  is  guided  by  it  in  the  reply  which  he  gives  to 
the  treasury  and  foreign  minister. 


ir 


IXSTKUCTIOXS 


TO 


THE  AGENT  AND  COUNSEL 


AXD 


ental  lojiul 
3  transiuis- 


PROCEEDINGS  AT  GENEVA 


IX 


DECEMBER,   1871.    AND    APRIL,    187Q. 


■  *^  I 


II 


■i-' 


prt'i 
L'lii 

Tl 
(leiK 
resp 
(lent 
troll 
capt 
of  c 
pur( 
reco 
who 
perf 

Tl 
men 
prep 
to  l 
clerl 
claii 
1  (le 
Avorl 
wed 
at  tt 
eacli 
read 


Si 
lette 
the< 


■^WIP 


w 


INSTRUCTIOXS. 


No.  1. 


Mr.  Davis  to  Mr.  Fish. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  November  13,  1871. 

Sir  :  Herewith  I  band  you  a  printed  copj"  of  the  Case  which  I  have 
prei>ared  to  be  presented  to  the  Tribunal  at  Geneva  on  behalf  of  the 
United  States. 

Tliis  Case  will  be  accompanied  by  seven  volumes  of  Documents,  Evi- 
dence, and  Correspondence.  Five  of  tliese  volumes  consist  of  the  cor- 
respondence and  other  matter  transmitted  to  the  Senate  by  the  Presi- 
dent, April  7,  18()0.  The  sixth  volume  contains  an  arranged  selection 
from  the  previous  five  volumes,  and  a  quantity  of  new  matter  from  the 
captured  rebel  archives  and  elseM'here.  This  volume  and  its  full  table 
of  contents  and  the  excellent  index  in  the  seventh  volume,  were  pre- 
pared by  Charles  C.  Beam  an,  jr.,  esq.  It  jjives  me  much  pleasure  to 
record  my  sense  of  the  great  value  of  Mr.  Eeaman's  services.  Any  one 
who  looks  at  this  volume  will  see  how  carefully  and  intelligently  he  has 
performed  his  work. 

The  seventh  volume  contains  some  miscellaneous  matter  and  full  state- 
ments of  the  chaims  for  losses,  national  and  individual.  The  former  were 
prepared  at  the  Navy  Department.  Their  completeness  leaves  nothing 
to  be  desired.  The  latter  were  prepared  under  my  direction  by  the 
clerks  in  this  Department,  and  show  the  nature  and  amount  of  each 
claim,  and  the  proof  on  tile  in  the  Department  by  which  it  is  sujiported. 
I  desire  to  bear  testimony  to  the  intelligence  and  fidelity  with  w  hich  this 
work  has  been  done  by  the  clerks  charged  with  it.  For  days,  1  may  say 
weeks,  in  the  most  oppressive  part  of  tlie  summer,  they  staid  cheerfully 
at  the  Department,  working  upon  this  statement  until  nearly  midnight 
each  day.  Without  such  labor  on  their  part  it  could  not  have  been  got 
ready  in  time. 

I  have  the  honor,  &c., 

J.  C.  B.  DAVIS. 


No.  2. 

Mr.  Fish  to  Mr.  Davis. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  November  14,  1871. 
Sir  :  I  have  received  the  copy  of  the  Case  with  your  accompanying 
letter  of  yesterday.    The  President  approves  of  your  i^resentation  of 
the  Case,  and  you  are  instructed  to  present  it  and  the  seven  accompa- 


■■.m\ 


414 


TREATY    OP   WASHINGTON. 


nyiiip:  volumes  at  Geiievii.  in  the  miiiiiier  ro(|iiire<l  by  the  Treaty,  as  tlic 
Case  of  the  United  .State.i,  and  the  docnunents,  otiicial  eunesi»on<lenee, 
iintl  other  evidence  on  which  tiiey  rely. 
1  am,  cS:c., 

HAMILTON  FISU. 


i,. 


No.  3. 

Mr.  Fink  to  J/r.  Davis. 

Department  of  State, 

WiiHh'nujton,  Kovember  14,  1871. 

Sir:  Yonr  appointment  and  acceptance  of  the  position  of  Aj^ent  of 
the  United  States  before  the  Tribnnal  of  Arbitration  at  Geneva  make  it 
necessary  to  give  you  brief  instructions  on  the  subject  of  your  duties. 

Y'ou  are  expected  to  be  at  Geneva  as  early  as  the  morning  of  the  Kith 
of  December  next.  It  is  probable  tbat  the  Tribunal  will  be  organized 
on  that  day  or  the  17th.  You  will  deliver  the  Case  and  the  seven  ac- 
companying volumes,  in  duplicate,  to  each  of  the  Arbitrators  and  to  the 
Agent  for  Great  Britain,  as  required  by  the  Treaty.  I  am  informed 
that  Lord  Tenterden  will  represent  Great  Britain  as  its  Agent. 

You  are  aware  that  Congress  has  made  no  api)ropriations  for  the  pay 
ment  of  an  agent's  salary  or  exi^enses.  The  President  will  advise 
that  your  compensation  shall  be  ttxed  at  the  rate  of  ten  thousand  dol- 
lars a  year,  and  your  necessary  expenses  suited  to  the  position  you 
occupy.  In  anticipation  of  such  appropriation  you  will  receive  here- 
with a  check  upon  Itiggs  »&  Co.  for  twenty-flve  hundred  dollars,  payable 
in  gold  coin. 

Herewith  also  you  will  receive  a  copy  of  the  cipher  of  this  Depart- 
ment. You  are  familiar  with  the  views  and  wishes  of  this  Department 
in  regard  to  the  general  position  to  be  taken  in  the  discussion  of  the 
Alabama  claims  before  the  Tribunal.  Should  any  new  important  points 
be  suggested  which,  in  your  judgment,  materially  vary  from  or  in  any 
way  conflict  with  those  views  and  wishes,  you  will  communicate  at  once 
with  the  Department  hy  telegraph,  if  necessary  to  have  an  immediate 
decision ;  by  mail,  if  there  be  time  to  obtain  a  reply. 
I  am,  &c., 

HAMILTON  FISH. 


No.  4. 
Mr,  Fish  to  Mr.  Ctishing,* 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  December  8,  1871. 

Sir  :  The  President  having  appointed  you  one  of  the  Counsel  of  the 
United  States  in  the  matter  submitted  by  the  Treaty  between  this  Gov- 
ernment and  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  signed  in  this  city  on  the  8th  day 
of  M.ay  last,  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  to  meet  in  Geneva,  and  the 

*  Same  to  Mr.  Evatts  and  Mr.  Waite* 


IXSTRrCTIONS    TO    THE    ACJEXT   AND    COl'NSKL. 


415 


iity,  as  the 
.s[»oii(ltMice, 

N^  FLSU. 


14,  1871. 

f  Agent  (tf 
3va  make  it 
nr  duties, 
of  the  Kith 
!  organ izetl 
B  seven  ac- 
8  and  to  the 
n  informed 
nt. 

for  the  i)ay- 
will  advise 
jusand  dol- 
osition  you 
ceive  here- 
irs,  payable 

lis  Depart- 
)epartinent 
sion  of  the 
tant  points 
ni  or  in  any 
iite  at  onee 
immediate 


X  nsn. 


r  8,  1871. 
usel  of  the 
u  this  Gov- 
;he  Sth  day 
ea,  and  the 


flppointment  having  been  aeeeptod,  it  becomes  noeessary  to  give  yon, 
briefly,  the  President's  instrn<itions  on  the  snltjeet  oi  yonr  duties. 

The  Case  of  the  United  States  has  be«Mi  pr«'pared,  under  the  gen- 
end  supervision  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  by  Mr.  .1.  ('.  lianeroCt  Davis, 
Assistant  Secretary  of  State,  who  has  been  appointed  to  att<'nd  tiie 
Tribunal  as  the  Agent  of  the  United  States  to  represent  this  (Jovern- 
iiient,  generally,  in  all  nnitters  connected  with  the  Arbitrati(»n. 

It  is  a<'(;ompanied  by  seven  volumes,  which  contain  the  liVidencte,  Doc- 
uments, and  ('(U'respondence  on  which  the  United  States  rely.  Copies 
(tf  the  Case,  and  of  the  ac<!onii»anying  volumes,  have  been  transnnt- 
ted  to  you.  Mr.  Davis  sailed  for  Kuroi)e  some  tiuw.  since,  and  intelli- 
(lence  of  his  arrival  in  France  has  been  received.  He  is  instructed  to 
lie  at  (leneva  on  or  before  the  KJth  day  of  December  insta  ^  lud  there 
to  deliver  the  Case  and  dociuuents  in  dui)licate,  as  rc(|uired  by  tluj 
Treaty.  It  is  expected  that  lie  will  then  receive  the  ollicial  copies  of 
the  IJritish  Case,  &.(-.  And  it  will  be  his  duty  to  confer  with  the  Coun- 
sel of  the  United  States  as  soon  thereafter  as  they  may  be  ready,  with 
a  view  to  the  preparation  of  the  Counter  Case  re(piired  by  the  Treaty. 

it  isalso  ex|>ected  that  the  Counsel  shall  be  in  Kuiope  as  soon  as 
their  convenience  will  permit.  They  will  arrange  among  themselves, 
and  with  Mr.  Davis,  as  to  the  most  convenient  place  for  their  meetings 
and  consultations.  In  the  absence  and  in  anticipation  of  an  agree- 
ment as  to  such  place  of  meeting,  it  is  thought  desirable  that  your  first 
meeting  be  in  (leneva,  at  as  early  a  day  after  your  arrival  in  Kurope  as 
sliall  be  convenient;  you  can  then  agree  with  Mr.  Davis  as  to  the  time 
and  place  of  your  future  meetings. 

The  Case  (tontains  the  general  views  of  this  Government  on  the 
sid)jects  likely  to  be  discussed  at  Geneva,  so  far  as  tlu^  facts  are  now 
known.  Should  it  become  necessary  to  deviate  materially  from  the 
positions  there  taken,  you  will  refer  to  this  Department.  IMr.  Davis 
has  a  coi)y  of  the  ciidun*  of  the  Department ;  in  case  you  find  it  neces- 
sary to  communicate  secretly,  he  will  enable  you  to  avail  of  the  cipher. 

^Ir.  Davis  is  fully  instructed  on  the  views  which  the  President  takes 
of  the  political  (piestions  that  nuiy  be  involved  in  the  discussion  of  the 
subject  as  it  now  stands.  Should  the  political  questions  involved  in  the 
case  assume  any  different  aspect,  on  the  presentation  of  the  Case  of 
the  IJritish  Government,  or  in  the  progress  of  the  case  before  the 
Tribunal,  they  will  be  referred  to  this  Department  for  submission  to  the 
President,  and  for  bis  further  instructions. 

The  presentation  and  the  management  of  tlie  legal  argument,  and  the 
treatment  of  the  questions  of  law  and  evidence,  are  committed  to  the  dis- 
cretion and  judgment  of  yourself  and  your  associate  Counsel.  The 
President  thiidcs  that  in  this  branch  of  your  duty  ycm  may  find  !Mr. 
Davis's  familiarity  with  the  history  of  the  Case  of  advantage,  and 
that  a  free  interchange  of  opinion  and  of  views,  and  consultations  with 
liim,  may  be  of  benefit. 

Mr.  Davis  is  instructed  to  correspond  frequently  with  this  Depart- 
ment. You  are  invited  to  communicate  with  the  Department  as  freely, 
and  fully,  and  frequently  as  you  may  find  it  convenient.  It  is  scarcely 
necessary  to  say  that  you  are  expected  not  to  correspond  (except  for 
the  purpose  of  obtaining  information  pertinent  to  the  case)  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Case  other  than  with  this  Department. 

The  instructions  regarding  the  Counter  Case  also  apply  to  the  Argu- 
ment. 
The  President  desires  to  have  the  subject  discussed  as  one  between 


if-.!--.", 


.MM 


416 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON. 


l 


;  ■ 


r 


1 .' 


the  two  (iovormnoiits;  and  lie  diiccits  me  to  iirj^e  upon  you  stroiifjl.v  to 
seeure,  iti>ossil)le,  the  awani  of  a  sum  in  p:ross. 

In  tlie  (lisenssion  of  this  question  and  in  the  treatment  of  the  entiit- 
Case,  you  will  be  careful  not  to<;omniit  theClovennnent  as  to  th<^  dispo- 
sition of  what  n)ay  be  awarded,  <u'  what  may  be  reeovereil  in  the  evj'iit 
of  the  appointment  of  the  board  of  assessors  mentioned  in  the  tentii 
article  of  the  Treaty.  It  is  possil)le  that  there  nuiy  be  duplicate  claims 
for  some  of  the  property  alleffeil  to  have  been  captured  or  destroyed,  as 
in  the  cases  of  insurers  and  insured. 

The  (lovernment  wishes  to  hold  itself  free  to  decide  as  to  the  rijrhts 
and  claims  of  insurers,  upon  the  termiimtion  of  the  case.  If  the  value  of 
the  pri)perty  capture<l  or  destroyed  be  recovered  in  the  name  of  the  (lov- 
ernment, the  distribution  of  the  amount  recovered  will  be  made  by  this 
Government,  without  committal  as  to  the  mode  of  distribution.  It  is 
expected  that  all  su<;h  committal  be  avoided  in  the  arjiument  of  Counsel. 

You  are  aware  that  Congress  has  made  no  appropriation  for  the  ex 
peases  of  the  Arbitration.    The  President  has  invited  the  action  of  Con- 
gress on  the  subject,  and  you  have  been  advised  that  he  would  recom- 
mend your  compensation  to  be  fixed  at  ten  thousand  dollars,  (coin,)  and 
your  expenses  suited  to  the  important  position  you  occupy. 

In  anticipation  of  the  appropriation,  you  will  receive  herewith  a  check 
upon  Itiggs  vS:  Co.,  of  this  city,  for  twenty-five  hundred  dollars,  pay- 
able in  gold  coin,  for  which  you  will  please  return  a  receipt. 

Each  of  the  Counsel  will  prol)ably  need  the  services  of  a  clerk.  In  the 
appropriation  which  will  be  asked  of  Congress,  an  estimate  will  be  in- 
cluded for  the  compensation  of  a  clerk  to  each  of  the  Counsel,  at  the  rate 
of  three  thousand  dollars  per  annum.  It  will  depend  on  the  granting  Ity 
Congress  of  the  aggregate  amount  asked  whether  this  allowance  can  be 
made. 

I  transmit  herewith  a  special  Passport  for  yourself  and  such  of  your 
family  or  siute  as  may  accompany  you. 

You  will  be  pleased  to  advise  me  of  the  time  when  you  contenii»late 
to  leave  the  country  to  enter  upon  the  duties  of  your  appointment,  and 
also  to  inform  theDepartmentof  your  arrival  in  Europe  and  at  Geneva, 
and  keei)  it  advised  of  your  address  from  time  to  time,  as  you  may  re- 
move from  i)lace  to  [dace,  so  that  immediate  communication  may  be  had 
with  you  at  all  times,  by  telegraph  or  by  mail. 

A  copy  of  these  instructions  will  be  furnished  to  Mr.  Davis,  and  I 
inclose  herewith  a  copy  of  the  letter  to  him  in  which  they  are  inclosed. 
I  have,  &c., 

HAMILTON  FISU. 


No.  5. 
Mr.  Davis  to  Mr.  Fish. 


Geneva,  December  15,  1871.  (Received  January  10.) 
Sir  :  I  have  the  Iionor  to  report  that  I  left  Paris,  the  13th  instant,  for 
this  place  in  company  with  Mr.  Adams,  Sir  Alexander  Cockburn,  and 
Lord  Tenterdeu.  On  the  route  we  weie  enabled  to  discuss  and  arrange 
the  preliminaries  for  the  organization  of  the  Tribunal.  This  has  made 
the  work  to-day  comparatively  light. 
After  calling  upon  the  various  Arbitrators  this  morning,  we  proceeded 


I'K()CEKI>IN<J.S    AT    (.KNKVA. 


417 


to  the  Hotel  de  N'illo  to  pay  our  rcspocts  to  tho  I'lositlcnt  of  tliis  Can- 
ton ami  to  the  Council  of  Htute.  We  were  loiinally  received  by  them, 
and  Mr.  Adams  made  a  proper  acknowledfjmeut  of  our  appreciation  of 
their  courtesy  in  tendering  the  Hotel  do  Ville  for  tho  conferences. 

At  three  o'clock  tho  gentlemen  had  all  arrived  at  the  rooms  assigned 
tons.  Tho  proceedings  commenced  by  an  informal  examination  of  the 
powers  of  the  Arbitrators,  all  of  winch  were  found  to  be  in  duo  form. 

Mr.  .Vdams  then  said  that  as  neither  he  nor  Sir  Alexander  Cockburn 
coiiUl  preside,  it  had  been  thought  advisable  to  invite  the  gentleman 
next  in  rank,  in  the  order  named  in  the  Treaty,  lo  preside  over  the  meet- 
ings of  the  Tribunal.  Sir  Alexander  Cockburn  said  that  lu;  seconded 
;lie  i)roi)osal,  not  only  for  the  reason  given  by  Mv.  Adams,  but  because 
i'oiuit  Sdopis  'ivas  one  of  the  nu)st  illustrious  of  llu^  .lurists  of  Europe. 
Count  Hclopis  took  the  Chair,  and  returned  his  tiianks  in  a  neat  speech, 

it  had  been  arranged  beforehand  that  ^Ir.  !Stiimi)tli  should  be  asked 
;o  name  a.  Secretary.  On  the  formal  I'erpiest  by  Count  Sclopis,  in  tin; 
name  of  the  Tribunal,  he  muned  .Mr.  Alexander  Tavrot,  of  l>erne.  The 
;iiitl('nian  was  waiting  in  the  ante  room,  and  wascomlucted  to  his  ]>lace 
!)\  Lord  Tenterden  and  myself. 

I  then  ])res(!nted  the  Case  on  behalf  of  the  United  States.  Sonu'  new 
ividence  friin  Melbourne  and  the  ('ape  .;f  Good  IIoi)e,  which  I  had  re- 
dived  at  the  last  moment,  had  to  be  i>nt  in  manuscrii)t,  in  fact  partly  in 
jiioss  copies :  but  it  is  in  press  in  Taris,  an«l  ])rinted  copies  will  soon  be 
>iil).stituted. 

I  send  lierewith  a  copy  of  the  note  accompanying  the  Cases.  Jt  was 
iiionti(!S'J  with  all  parties. 

I  also  send  a  coi)y  of  the  note  which  Lonl  Tenterden  i)resented  with 
!iis  Case  and  Documents. 

The  confer,  lice  was  held  today  at  the  Hotel  de  Ville  pursuant  to  ad- 
journmenl  A  U  the  Arbitrators  were  present,  and  it  was  determined  to 
adjourn  until  June,  unless  one  of  the  parties  should  convene  an  earlier 
meeting  under  the  fourth  article  of  the  Treaty.  I  iiudose  copies  of  the 
Protocols  of  yesterday's  and  to-day's  conferences. 
I  have,  &.C., 

A.  C.  B.  DAVIS. 


Ml 


Mr.  Datif  to  Mr.  Adamx. 


(Iiitld.HUVo  Xo,  1.1 


Gi:XK\.v,  December  I'y,  1h71. 
The  undersigned,  Agent  of  tlie  United  States,  .appointed  to  attend  tho  Tribunal  of 
Wiitiation  convened  at  (ioneva  under  tiio  provisions  of  a  Treaty,  coneluded  at  Wa.sli- 
ingtou,  May  8,  1871,  between  the  United  States  and  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  has  tlie 
lioiior,  in  conipliunce  with  the  provisions  of  Article  III  of  the  Treaty,  to  deliver  hero- 
'*itli,  in  duplicato,  to  the  Hon.  Charles  Francis  Adams,  tlie  Arbitrator  named  hy  the 
I'rcsident  of  tho  United  States,  the  printed  Case  of  tho  U^nited  States,  accompanied 
■y  tliu  documents,  the  official  correspondence,  and  other  evidence  ou  which  they  rely. 
The  undersigned,  &c., 

J.  C.  HANX'ROFT  PAVIS. 
[List  of  inclodures.] 

I.  Tlio  Case  of  tho  United  States,  (2  copies.) 

II.  Documents,  Correspondence,  and  Evidence  in  support  of  the  Case  of  the  United 
'states,  in  seven  volumes,  (2  copies.) 

in.  Certain  other  Documents,  Correspondence,  andp]vidence  in  manuscript  relating 
to  tho  Alabama  and  to  the  Shenandoah^  which  reached  the  Agent  too  late  to  be  printed 
'■^ith  tho  volumes,  ('i  copies.) 

27  A— 11 


''I 


:;1 


418 


TKKATV    OF    WASHINGTON. 


IV.  The  Ct'itiliciito  of  this  .Si'orotary  of  Stiitc  of  tlie  Uiiitod  States  to  tlie  corici  Uics^ 
of  certain  copies  contained  in  the  above-named  vrdnnies,  ("i  copies.) 

V.  The  Certificate  of  the  Secretary  of  tlie  Treasury  of  tlie  United  States  i.>  tin-  cdi- 
rectness  of  certain  other  copies  containwl  in  the  ahove-nained  volnines,  (V  copies.) 

VI.  The  fjertilicato  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  of  the  Tnited  States  to  the  coricct- 
nosH  of  certain  other  copies  contained  in  the  above-named  volumes,  {2  copies.) 

VII.  The  Certilicato  of  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States  to  the  correctncvN 
of  certain  other  copies  contained  in  the  above-named  A'olnmes,  ('>  copies.) 

NoiK. — As  soon  as  Iiiclosnre  No.  I?  can  be  printed,  printed  copies  will  lie  riiini-li,,!. 
It  has  been  impossible  to  ;j;et  them  ready  in  time  for  this  Confeniiice. 


Lord  'I'liil'rdni  to  yfr.  Diir'ix. 


!  Illllosmr  No.  ' 


(;i:m.\.\.  Ih'irmbir  l.'>,  l-TI. 

The  iindi'isii;ii('(l,  A;i('iit  of  lIiT  ihitaiiiiic  .Miiji-sty.  iip))oiiited  'o  attend  tlit-  'rriluni.L 
of  Aibitration  conveiied  at  (ieiK^va,  under  tin;  provisions  of  the  Treaty  coiielnilcii  a; 
Washington  on  tin;  '^tli  of  May,  b"^/!,  bet.  "en  Hei  JJritannie  Majesty  and  (he,  liniiil 
States,  has  the  honor,  in  eomi'Mancf  with  the  )>i-ovisions  of  Article  HI  of  tluj  Treaty,  in 
<b'liver  iierewith,  in  dnplicat  •  !o  Mr.  .1.  ('.  ISaneroft  Davis,  the  Anient  a)>pointi'd  liy  tli. 
I'nited  States,  tli(^  printed  Cast  of  the  (iovernment  of  Her  Hiitmnie  Majesty.  .■Hemii 
])anied  by  the  dociin!i'nt.>-',  tlie  otbcial  corresjiondenee,  and  otbei'  evidenci,-  on  wliicli  r. 
relies. 


The  uni'.eisigiied,  Ac, 


TKNTKK'HKX. 


Xt».  <;. 


Mr.  Ihirls  fn  Mr.  Fish. 


mil 


(lUNUVA.  Ai>ril  l."i,  IcSTl'.     (Ucci'ivcd  Ajiril  ."{O,; 

SiK:  1  liiivi'  tlu*  lionor  t<»  inloinry  .:  thiir  I  iiirivod  in  (IcMicvii  on  flu 
i'veiiiiij4'  ot  Satuidiiy,  the  l.'dh  instant. 

Lonl  Tentciwlcn  iuiivod  ycstcfdny;  (Icneral  Ciiisliin;.'' and  Mv.  IJcaiiian 
also  each  i>ut  in  an  aitpearance  ye.sterday.  Tliis  ntornin*;' \v«' exchanged 
the  Ccniiiter  Cases,  The  I'.ritish  Coiinter  Case  was  aeeonipanied  hy  ii 
note  IVoni  liOrd  Tenterden  to  the  Arbitrators,  of  whieli  a  «'0])y  is  inclesed. 
I  thon{;ht  the  note  re<|iiired  some  notice  on  my  p.irt,  and  iumU  the  leply 
of  A\hieh  a  copy  is  inelo.sed. 

The  Counter  Cases  on  the  pan  ol'Cii'cat  JUitain,  which  were  exchaii;.;oi! 
at  the  Hotel  de  \'ille,  were  the  copies  lor  Mr.  Aihuns.  Count  Sclopi-. 
^fr.  Stiimplli,  and  myself.  The  copies  for  Sir  AlexanihM-  CocUhiun  and 
llaron  d"ltajuli;i  wcr(^  not  e.vchan.m'd  in  my  preseni.'e.  On  our  side,  t!ie 
cojMes  for  Sir  Alexander  Cockhurn,  31  r.  Adams,  Count  Sclopis,  and  ^U\ 
StiimpHi  were  delivered  in  the  Hotel  de  Ville.  The  eojjy  lor  Lord  Ten 
terden  was  taken  hy  his  lordship  I'rom  my  room.  ;.  id  the  c<»py  for  Danm 
dTtaJuba  Mas,  Ity  his  exjness  desire,  relaineiL  in  '.';iris,  lo  he  delivered 
after  exchanee  here. 

After  the  adJournmcMt   I  r(M'ci\tMl  from   Paris  your  tele;nram  relatiiiu 

to  claims  liled  in  the  l>epartment  since  March  -«,  and  addres.sed  ; i' 

to  the  Arhitratois  and  l>ritish  Aj^ent,  ot  which  a  v,(\iy  is  inclosed. 

I'rom  these  \;irions  enclosures  you  will  be  able  to  hmrn  exactly  v.lia; 
Inb^  ollicially  taken  place  here  l<»(iay. 
I  ha\c,  iV^c, 

.1.  C.  15.  DAVIS. 


■■fl 


PROCKLi.INGS    AT    (iEN'KVA. 


419 


le  conc'tii(s< 


iNTHinn'.x, 


Ml,  Dc.vlo  to  ('/If  .li-bitratiir^. 
[Inclumiivi'  \ip.  l.| 

Till-  uiuhr.sijiiiftl,  A;;i'iU  of  tlie,  Umti'l  States,  ii]>|t(>into(l  ti'  attciul  the  'riiliuniil  of 
.1  liirratioii  coiivciied at  (jiciieva, uiuU'.r the  jn'o'^i^ions ofa '.''reaty  coiichuU'tl  at  WaHhinji;- 
luii  May  H,  1871,  l)ct\vt'('ii  tho  United  States  ami  Ilor  Hritamiic  Majesty,  has  t'x-  honor 
ill  lomplianco  with  tho  provisions  of  Article  IV  of  the  Treaty,  to  deliver  h^^iowith,  in 
(iiiplieate,  tho  C'o;j::ter  Case  of  the  United  States  and  additional  Docuuicnts,  Corre- 
-poiulenec,  and  Evidence,  in  reply  to  the  Case,  J)oc  unents,  ■  orrospondencf?,  and  Kvi- 
iliiUM'  presenteil  to  tiie  Tiihiiiial  of  Arhitralion  l>y  tli(!  (Jovernnieiit  of  Her  Itritannie 
Miljeslv. 

.1.  (".  IJANCKOFT  DAVIS. 

(.i;vr.\.v,  ./yjci/  l.'>.  HT'J. 

[T.\s{  of  imiosiiics.  I 

1.  Counter  Case  of  tin*  United  States  and  adflitional  l>o(;iinients,  Correspondince,  asid 
i!videnee. 

■>.  Documents,  Corn^spoudence,  and  evidence  in  re]>ly  to  the  Case. 

:!.  Documents  and  Evidence  entitled  '•  Ifevised  List  of  Clai.iis  fih  d  with  tlic  Depart- 
inrnt  of  State,  >;rowin^  out  of  tiie  acts  coinniitted  liy  the  several  vess«'ls  wliich  have 
.•iveii  rise  to  the  claims  {jenerically  known  as  the  'Alal>ama  Claims.'  '" 

•t.  Documents  and  ''vidt^iuui  entithd  "tht;  Cuhan  Coiri'si>ondeiu'e,  1H1U')-'71."' 

.').  Copies  of  drawin}>s  of  the  Alahama,  captured  at  Kiehmoml  hy  the  forces  of  the 
I'nited  S(:it<>s. 


Mr.  Ihin^  to  Mr.   i'arriil. 

I  ln(l<isuic  Nil.  -i.  I 

<;r,M;\  A.  .Ipri!  1."),  1"<*;J. 

Sii;;  Inclosed  I   transmit  lo  you  sealed  letters  for  each  of  the  Arhitrators  appointtMl 

Mii'ler  the  first  Articli'  of  the  Treaty  of  Washinj^ton.and  the  Hritish  Afj;ent.    A  cojiy  is 

...1. ...... I 


iicleseil 


icieseo. 

I  will  tnank  yon  to  forward  the  letiers  and  aeconiiiaTiyinij  documents,  addressed  to 
(innt  Sclo[)is,  Mr.  Stiimplli,  Mr.  Adams,  Sir  Alexander  Cocklturn,  and  Lord  Tenterden, 
•sipcctively, 

I  liave  heen  re(|uested  hy  the    iSaron   d'ltajuhii.  to  take  charge  of  his    lettei',  and   I 
111  see  that  it  is  duly  deliverc<l  U>  hiii:  with  the  doeiiminis  to  which  it  refi-rs. 
I  a  II,  Arc, 

.).  C.   !!.   DAVIS. 


Mr.  I'drntl  tii  Mr.  Ihirh, 
'  liic!'i-<inf  N'i>.  '^.] 

llui  i;i.  i«i;  Vii.i.r..  «iI.ni;\  a, 

.Ipril  ir*,  lH7-i. 
Sii::  1  have  to  ackuowli^df-'c  the  n-ceipt  of  your  letter  of  this  date,  indosinij  1e<ior 
iifacli  of  the  Arl)itrators  ai'oointed  under  the  liist  .Vrlicle  of  tiie  Treaty  of  W'ashing- 
i("i,  and  l'>r  the  Ihitish  A;^ent. 

luill  forward  tho  letters  and  the,  aecompanyin;j  documents  to  Count  Sclopis,  Mr. 
•'.  Imiitli,  Mr.  Adams,  Sir  Alexamhir  (^oekWurn.  and  Lord  Tenterden,  r('S]icctivi')y. 

1  iiiind  yon  herewith  the  letter  for  IJarou  d'ltajniiii.  and  I  take  noti;  that  you  will 
■r  tli.it  it  is  delivered  to  him  svith  th<'  documents  to  which  it  refers. 
1  am,  iV<'.. 

ALE.\.  lAVIJOT. 


/.')>■(/  Tiutvrdiii  ht  Mr.  l>arix. 

\  Iiicl(i8urc  Xi>.  4.] 

(iiAT.VA,  April  l.'i,  lS7iJ. 

flic  iindeisijrncd,  A;;«'n(  of  Iler  lUitannic  ^fajesty,  iippoinled  to  attend  the  Trihunal 

' '  A'hitration,  cmiveneil  at  tiemn  a  under  tho  pro\  isions  of  tin;  'I'realy  conchuled  at. 

''Viisliinfjt<ui  May  ^.  1H7 1,  between  Her  15ritai\ine  Majesty  and  tho  L'nited  States,  luw 

li'  lienor,  in  accordance  with  tho  fourth  Arti<le  of  the  Treaty  and  the  IVotocid  agreed 

iniii  at  the  meeting  held  on  the  l.')th  <d"  December,  to  deli\iir  ht^rewilh  in  duplicate  to 

ii''  Hon.  .1.  C.  Jlancridt   Davis,  the  Agent  of  the   Cnited  States,  tho  printed   Coun- 

M  Ciiso  <tf  ilii;  (io'eninu'ut  "f  Iler   Ihil.'innic   Majesty,  accompanied  by  additional 


j: 


420 


TKKATV    OF    \VA.s|ll\(i ToX. 


«lo(Miiiitiit>,  oiliiiiil  <  oiicsiioiHh'iuo.  aiid  cviflfiui'  in  i<'i)I,v  to  tlir  Ciisc.  l>oiiiiiiiiil.-.,  (' 
n'lsiioiKlfiicf,  iiiid  Kvidoiu'fi  jircscnhMl  l»y  Mr.  l)avi.>i  <!ii  tin-  pail  <>f  the  I'liitiii  Stut'^ 
tlic  Tiil)unal  at  tliat  iiK-t'tiii^. 
Tln^  iiiidfr.si^iiiril,  Ac, 

TF.NTKlMil.v 


hitrd  Teiilirdrii  to  Mr.  Dmix. 


[Ini 


Ni 


(;i;n!;\  A,  .liiiil  l.'i,  !• 


Silt :   1  Iia\  I'  llif  Iioiioi-  to  li'aiiMiiit  to  \<>ii  a  ro))v  of  a  note,  wliicli,  l>y  direction  of  \[, 
I'll  ilamiif  MaJ('.st.y'H  (i(>V(M'iiini-nt,  I  liavc  addn's.sc<l  to  carli  of  tjic  Aildliators  aiipoiutc 
iiiidt'i-  tin- lirst  Article  of  the    Inaty  of  \\'a>iltiii,ntoii.  and  ■wliicli  will   In-  dclivcnd  t 
tlieni  tojictlua'  with  the  ('oiinlerCaM-  which  I  hj'.ve  )ncsen!ed. 
I  !ia\  e,  i\  <•., 

•  IKMKIi'DiA. 


h,<(l  1 


I  tilt  lUliI  III 


/Ac  At  Inl rutin ■■ 


I  lm•lll^<'l^^'  Nn.  (i. 


(;i.Ni:\  A,  Afiril  ].">,  1- 


'I'lie  !i!Hli'isi«rncd,  A  cut  of  Her  I'.iitaiiiiic  Majesty,  is  iiistnictcd  by  Her  Ma.ji  ^ty - 
(JoveMiiiieiil  to  stale  to  Count  ^clopiw,  Jiaion  <i'Iia,iiilia.  M.  Jstiiiii]illi,  ."sir  A.  ('<ickl)inii. 
Mr.  (J.  V.  Adams,  that,  whih-  present inji  tiieir  (.'ciiiiier  Case,  under  tiie  special  resei\^i- 
Mon  heieiuai'ter  mentioned,  in  reply  to  theCasi^  whicli  lias  l)cen  ))i'esi'nted  nu  the  \k\\\ 
of  the  Cnited  .'^^tatcs,  they  lind  it  incuinlient  lui  them  to  infoiiii  the  Ailiilratois  thnt  .i 
iiiisunderstandin;;  has  nnfortiimitely  aiiseii  1>el\veen  (ii<at  liritain  ami  the  I  iiit'M 
Stales  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  tiie  claims  rcleiird  to  the  Trihiinal  liy  the  hi^i 
Article  of  the  Treaty  of  \Vashii);;ton. 

Tills  niisuuderstaiidin>r  rel.ates  to  the  claims  (iir  iudirecl  losses  jint  torwaid  liy  liir 
l«overnment<if  the  Cnited  Slates  under  the  se\-eral  heads  of  ( 1 )  "  Ihe  lo,»s  in  the  i!aii>|i  i 
(»f  the  Americ.an  eomnievcial  marine  to  the  J$ritish  tlaii."'  ("J)  " 'l"he  enhanced  )iayiiieiit> 
«»f  insurance."  i  :i)  "The  )irolon;;ali(Ui  <if  Ihe  war  ami  the  addition  of  a  larjie  sum  In  tin 
cost  ol'  the  war,  and  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion  ;"  which  cliiims  for  indirect  lo»i  - 
ar(!  not  ixlmitted  by  Her  Majesty's  <;o\-ernment  to  be  within  either  thesco]>eor  tin 
intention  of  the  relerem!e  to  Arliitialion.  Her  M;i.je.->ly'.s  (•overnment  lia\i!  liecn  fm 
some  timi;  ]>ast,  ami  still  are,  in  correspmidenee  with  the  Government  of  the  Cnilnl 
States  upon  this  subject,  and  as  this  correspondence  has  not  been  bron;;lit  to  a  liiiu! 
iNHUe,  Her  Majesty's  (iovernmeiit  bein;j  de^'irous  (if  )>ossible)  of  jn'oceedinj;  \\  itii  IIk 
reference-  as  to  tin'  claims  for  ilireet  losses,  li;ive  thoiiH^ht  it  proper  in  the  '.iieau  tiiiic  in 
juesent  to  the  Arbitrators  their  C(Uint«'r  Case,  ( whi(  h  is  stvlctl.\  conlined  to  the  claim- 
for  direct  losses,)  in  the  liop<>  that,  before  the  lime  limited  by  the  lifth  Article  of  ilx 
Treaty,  this  unfortunate  misumlerstiiudiii;;  may  be  removed. 

Jbit   Her  Majesty's  (iovernment  ilesiri-  to  intimate,  ami  do  hereby  e\pre>sls  :ni<! 
formally  iiitiniato  and   notify  to  the  Arbiliat<u-s  that  th<«  (Niiinter  C^ase  is  )>resenl<i; 
without  prejudice  to  the  jiosilion  i'ssiiiiu'd   by  Her  .Majesty's  (iovernmeiit   in  thctoi 
resuoiuU'iiee  to  which  reference   has  been  made,  and   under  the  exiiress  reser\:ition  nl 


all  Her  Majesty's  rights,  in  the  event  ot  a  ditVereuee  continiiiiij^  to  exist  between  tin 
Hifih  Coiitraetiu);  I'.irlies  as  to  Iho  scope  iiiiil  intention  of  the  refeiiMiee  to  Arbitiatinii 
if  cireumstauces  should  rentier  it  necessary  for  Her  Majesty  to  cause  any  fiiMlm 
<'oiiiiiiunieation  to  be  addresseil  to  the  Arbitratcus  on  the  subject.  Her  Majesty  nii 
direct  tli.it  commiiiiieatioii  to  be  made  at  or  before  the  time  limited  by  the  tilth  Ailii ' 
«>f  the  Treaty. 


The  iiiidersif>iied.  iVe, 


TK.MKIHU'.N. 


Mr.  Darix  In  Lord  Triitirdin. 
[Iiic'.oMin-e  No. '.] 


(;i:.\K\  \,  .Ijnii  l.>,  I" 


M\   l.oi{!>:   I  base  Ihe   honor  to  aekiiowhd^e  the  rectipt  of  your  note  of  this  d;il> 
transmittinn  to  ine  a  coi)y  of  a  note,  whit  h.  by  tliret  titni  of  Her  IJritaniiie   M.ijesly  - 
(Joverninent,  you  have  atltlressed  to  each  of  the  Arbitratoix  a|t|ioiiitetl  umler  the  Iir-' 
Artitlc  of  the  Treaty  of  Wa.shiiij;toii,  ami  which  has  been  delivereil  tii  them  ttti;i  ihi ; 
with  the  ('tniiiter  Case  which  ytiii  have  pre.seuted. 

I  have  iit>w  the  honor  It)  transmit   to  ytiii  a  copy  tif  ji  letter  tt»  the  Arbittat'us,  wliii 
has  been  matle  necessary  by  ytmr  lortNhip'><  note  tti  them,  iiiid   ha\e  the  liontir  to  I" 


I  ery  respet 


■tliilh 


.!.(  .  llANCUtU  r  HAMS 


':.0-} 


I'ROCr.EDlNMiS    AT    (JKN'KVA. 


421 


Mr.  Darin  to  tin-  .Irhllrtilory. 

'  Inrliisilli'  No.  h.j 

<ii.\K\  A.  .(^»/i7  ir>.  if-i7-j. 

I'lii'  iiM<l<'isi>iiic(I,  A,!;ciit  lit  tin-  I,'iiit«'il  Stiifes,  lia.H  tlif  Imiiioi-  to  iiiloiiii  the  ArhitnilorH 
;i<i|i()iiitc<l  imdi'i'  tlif  ]ii()visioiis  (if  tlio  Trciity  fonclndcd  bctsvct'ii  tin-  I'nitcd  Stiiti's  anil 
lit  r  Hritiuiiii(^  Miijf.sty  (HI  tlic  Htli  <hiy  of  May,  H7I,  that  In;  has  iccfivcd  from  F.ord 
T.iitvrdi'ii,  the  Ajjciit  of  llcr  niitaniiic  Majesty,  a  lopy  (d 'a  iiol(^  tliis  (hiy  .iddrcsNcil  by 
his  lordship  to  oach  of  tlie  Aihitiators,  in  which  it  is  aviind  tliat  sonic  of  the  chiinm 
pid  forth  by  the  I'nitcd  St:i)cs  in  their  ('use  arc  not  within  tht^  scope  or  intention  of 
this  rcfcrciu-e. 

'I'ho  instrnctions  to  the  nn(h>rsi}j;nc«l  from  his  (iovei'imicnt  not  havin;;  conteniphited 
tiie  probability  of  snch  a  course  on  the  ]iart  of  Ilcr  Majesty's  (Jovcrnnn'nt,  the  lunh'r- 
.i^iied  is  cotnpclled  in  reply  to  reserve  to  his  (iovernment  its  fnll  riy;ht  hereafter  to 
viudicalt!  belorc  tlii>  'I'ribnnal  the  nnthinity  which  it  nndi^'stands  the  'I'ribnnal  aci|niri;d 
uiidt-r  Ihi^  Treaty  in  this  resiiect. 
■|he  nn(lersi;;ned,  Ac. 

.1.  C.  r.AXCI.'olT  HA  VIM. 


Mr.  //(//('v  to  .Mr.  i'arrul. 

i  III)  lii>iil'<'  Nil.  M.  j 

(ii:M:VA,  AprU  l.'>,  IHT'i. 

Sii:  :   1  have  to  iiicloM' a  letter  fur  each  of  the  Arbifrattns  and  for  Lord   Tcntcrthni, 
. hicli  1  will  tnank  yon  to  forward  to  them. 
I  am.  A  <-.. 

.I.e.  i:.  1>AVIS. 


Mr.  Varriit  In  Mr.  Ifurlx. 

[ liujiisiirc  N(i.  Iti. ] 

lloTKi.  i»i;  Vii.i.K,  (Jkneva,  Aiiril  l.'»,  lrt?'i. 
Sin  :  I  have  the  honor  lo  ackiiowled;;e  tlnMcceipt  of  your  n(>t«)  of  this  day  inclosinfj 
.  letter  for  each  of  the  Arbitrators  and  for  Lord  Tcnterdon,  which  yon  rei|ncst  me  to 
inrward  to  them. 

I  shall  have  innch  pleasure  in  ((miplyinp;  with  yonr  wiHhcH,  and  iivail  iiiyHelf  of  this 
'i]iI>ortunity  to  renew  to  y<ni  the  assniances  ttf  tlic  ('ntir«disiiit.«r<!stodncsH  with  whi«di 
I  remain.  Ac, 

AI>KX.  FAVKOT. 


Mr,  Itaria  In  Count  Sihipig. 
[liicliiHiiri'  Nil.  11. 1 

The  iinilerslKned,  A;;eiit  of  the  I'nitcd  StatcH,  has  the  honor  to  transmit  luTowith  to 
CiiimtSciopiNtliefoIlowinKcopy  of  a  tclc^riiin  r«coived  from  tlio  Strcretiiry  of  Stiito  «»f 
iliellnitod  States  thiH  day,  and  to  nsk  to  have  it  conHidured  as  a  fnrthi^r  Appendix  ti> 
ibt' ('(muter  Ca,so  of  United  StiitcH: 

''Sim:u  March  22,  n«lditional  chiiaiH  for  capturo  ami  (h'.striiction  and  dainu^o  by  in- 
•  rniption  of  voydKO  )mve  been  filed  to  the  amount  of  live  hundr(>d  and  live  thonmind 
'iKht  hundied  and  forty-nine  doUurH  forty-six  euuts,  and  claims  for  increiMed  iiiNur- 
'iiicepreminiUH  to  the  amount  of  three  hnntlnMl  and  thirty-four  thousand  nine'hnndrcd 
Mu\  thirty-three  dollars  ninitty-eight  cents. 

"FISH." 

The  iinderHi);ned  has  the  honor  to  renew  to  C'onnt  SclopiH  the  UHtiurance  of  his  dis- 
°Mi)(uishiMl  considerat ion. 

J.  C.  HANCUOF'r  DAVIH. 


Til 


C01IRE8P0XI)I:NCK 


itKsi'ixnxu 


THE    (lEKEVA   AJIB IT  RATION 


AND 


TROPOSED  SUPriEMENTAL  ARTICLE  TO  THE  TREATY. 


'V 


COI] 


Loii 
lor  ill 
iilarni 
offons 
(»l»erui 


Thei 
C(tiins( 
eniinei 

The 
and  CO 
tlic  Tn 


Itesei 
*lisi»iitcl 
l»r('tati( 


Sii!  :  1 
wntfd  01 
lion  at  0^ 


franr 


CORRESPOXDLNCi:  ItESPKCTlNG  THE  (iKNKVA  ARBI- 
TRATION. 


i 


Xo.  1. 

(:<  ncrdl  Schcnck  to  Mr.  rinh. 

[T<'lfj;iiiui.] 

liONDOX,  FehtHtuij  '2,  1871!. 
London jonniils  all  tlemiuid  that  Unitcil  States  shall witluhaw claims 
for  indirect  daniajjes.  as  not  within  intention  of  Treaty.  Ministry 
alarmed.  Am  exertinjr  myself  with  hope  to  prevent  anythinj;  rash  or 
offensive  bein*;  <lone  or  said  by  this  (rovernment.  ICvarts  here  eo- 
operatin;,'. 

SCIIKNCK. 


No.  :.'. 


Mr.  Fish  to  (ivneral  Svhi'Hvlc. 
[Telt'gnui).] 

Dki'Autmkxt  of  Statk, 

Washington,  February  .»,  1.S72. 

There  must  be  no  withdrawal  of  any  part  of  the  claim  presented. 
Counsel  will  argue  the  case  as  prepared,  unless  they  show  to  this  (Jov- 
ermnent  reasons  for  a  change. 

The  alarm  jou  speak  of  does  not  reach  us.  AVe  are  perfec^tly  calm 
and  content  to  await  the  award,  and  do  not  anticipat*'  repudiation  of 
the  Treatv  bv  the  other  side. 

FISH. 


No.  .5. 

(ienvral  tSchcnrk  to  Mr.  Fixh. 

[Tel<'}j;rain.] 

London,  February  5,  l.STi*.    (Sent  at  8.;{0  p.  m.) 

Reserving  comment  and  further  information  until  I  can  send  written 
<li>spatch,  I  communicate  (Iraiiville's  note  giving  notice  of  Britisli  int<^r- 
liretation  of  Treaty,  as  follows  : 

Eurt  GrmnUU  to  Giturul  Scheiick. 

Four.niX  Okkick,  Ftbruary '.\,  1872. 

'^11!  :  Her  Maje»t.v'rt  (tovt'iiiinent  have  liad  unclor  their  foiisiderntion  tlu*  Cusp  prc- 
xciitcil  oil  bohali'ot*  the  Cioverniuent  of  thu  United  Htaten  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitra 
tioii  at  (ieneva,  of  whii-h  a  cojiy  had  been  presented  to  Her  MajeHtj's  Agent. 


!  ' 


420 


TREATY    OF    \VASHIN(JTON. 


I  will  not  iiiliulo  ill  this  lettt'i"  to  Hevenil  jiortions  of  tlio  I'liitcd  Stat«'.s  Cum)  wjiidi 
uro  ufcoiiipaiiitivfly  siiiallor  iiii])oitjiiiCL>,  but  Her  Aljijewty't*  (iovt'iiiuiont  aro  ofoiiinjoii 
that  it  will  he  in  ju-conlancc  with  their  (IcMiiii  that  no  oli.staclc  Nhoiild  bo  inteiposiil  \i, 
tlui  prosecution  of  the  Arbitration, and  that  it  will  be  more  frank  and  friendly  towanl 
the  (lovernnient  of  the  I Tnited  States  to  state  at  once  their  views  respecting  eertniii 
claims  of  an  onormons  and  indetinite  amount  which  appear  to  liave  been  put  forward 
us  matters  to  Ijc  referred  to  arbitration. 

Her  Majesty's  (jovernment  liold  that  it  is  not  within  the  jtroviine  of  the  Tribunal  m 
Arbitration  ut  (ieiieva  to  decide  upon  the  claims  for  indirect  losses  and  injuries  piit 
forward  in  the  case  of  the  United  States,  inclndiii};  the  loss  in  the  transfer  of  the  Aim  rj 
can  commercial  marine  to  the  liritish  tia);,  the  enhanced  |)uyment  of  insurance,  and  tiic 
proloii<ration  of  tlie  war,  and  the  addition  of  a  large  sum  to  the  cost  of  the  war  ami 
siii)pressioii  of  the  Kdiellion. 

1  have  stated  above  the  importance  which  Her  Majesty's  (Jovernment  attach  to  tlir 
prosecution  of  this  arbitration. 

The  ])riniary  tibject  of  tlie  (Jovernments  was  the  firm  establishment  of  amicable  rela- 
ti'iiis  between  two  countries  which  have  so  many  and  such  peculiar  reasons  to  be  on 
friendly  terms,  and  the  satisfaction  with  which  the  unnouncument  of  the  Treaty  was 
received  Ity  both  nations  showi'd  the  strength  of  that  feeling. 

IJut  there  is  another  object  to  which  Her  Majesty's  (Jovcrnment  believe  the  (iovcin- 
meiit  of  the  United  States  attach  the  same  value  as  they  do  themselves,  namely,  td 
give  an  example  to  the  world  how  two  great  nations  can  settle  matters  in  dispute  l>y 
referring  them  to  an  impartial  tribunal. 

Her  Maji!sty's  Government,  on  their  part,  feel  coulident  that  the  (Jovernment  of  tin' 
United  States  are  also  equally  anxious  with  themselves  that  the  amicable  .settleiniMit 
which  was  stated  in  the  Treaty  of  Washington  to  have  been  the  object  (»f  that  instru- 
ment may  bo  attained,  .'ind  that  an  exauijile  so  full  of  good  promise  tor  the  future  may 
Jiot  be  lost  to  the  civili/ed  world. 

SCIIKXCK. 


i 


No.  1. 

(iencval  kSchcnck  to  Enrl  (irtinrille. 


Lecjation  of  the  United  Sjates, 

London,  Februartj ,"),  ISTi'. 

My  Loud:  I  linvo  tlie  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt,  on  the  eve 
ning  of  the  .'Jd  instant,  of  yonr  note  of  that  date,  in  which,  after  statin;,' 
that  Her  Majesty's  Government  have  had  under  their  consideration  the 
Case  presented  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitra 
tion  at  Geneva,  you  proceed  to  say  that  you  will  not  allude  to  several 
l)ortions  of  that  Case  which  are  of  comparatively  smaller  importance, 
but  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  are  of  opinion  that  it  will  be  in 
accordance  with  their  desire  that  no  obstacle  should  be  interposed  to 
the  prosecution  of  the  arbitration,  and  that  it  will  bo  more  frank  and 
friendly  toward  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  state  at  once 
their  views  respecting  certain  claims,  which  you  describe  as  of  an  enor- 
mous and  indetinite  amount,  which  appear  to  have  been  put  forward  iis 
nmtters  to  be  referred  to  arbitration. 

You  then  go  on  to  state  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  hold  that  it 
is  not  within  the  province  of  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  Geneva  to 
decide  upon  the  claims  for  indirect  losses  and  injuries  put  forward  in 
the  Case  of  the  United  States,  including  the  loss  in  the  transfer  ot 
the  American  commerci.il  marine  to  the  Jiritish  flag,  the  enhanced 
payment  of  insurance,  and  the  prolongation  of  the  war,  an<l  the 
addition  of  a  large  sum  to  the  cost  of  the  war  and  suppression  of  the 
rebellion. 

Keferring,  then,  to  the  importance  which  Her  Majesty's  Government 
attach  to  the  prosecution  of  the  arbitration,  you  proceed  to  speak  ot 
the  objects  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  had  in  view  in  that  arhi 


(JOKRKSPONIUiXCK    RKSI'ECTIN(J    fJKNEVA    AHHITKATION.      427 


,0  I 


tiatioii.  The  primary  oUJecl,  yoil  say,  was  tlie  Hrni  establislinu'iit  of 
amicable  relations  between  two  countries  which  have  so  many  ami  siieh 
peculiar  reasons  to  be  on  friendly  terms;  ami  you  add  that  the  satisfac- 
tion with  which  the  announcenuMit  of  the  Treaty  was  received  by  both 
nations  showed  the  strenjjth  of  that  feelin};. 

r.ut  you  say  there  is  another  object  to  which  Her  ^Majesty's  (Jovern- 
incnt  believe  the  (Government  of  the  United  States  attach  the  same 
value  as  they  do  themselves,  namely,  to  give  an  example  to  tht;  world 
liow  two  great  nations  can  settle  matters  in  dispute  by  referring  them 
to  an  impartial  tribunal. 

And  you  close  your  note  with  the  statement  that  Her  Majesty's  (lov- 
miment  on  their  part  feel  conHdent  that  the  (lovernmentof  the  United 
States  are  also  equally  anxious  with  themselves  that  the  amicable  set- 
tlement, M'hi(!h  was  stated  in  the  Treaty  of  Washington  to  have  been 
the  object  of  that  instrument,  may  be  attained,  and  that  an  example 
so  full  of  good  promise  for  the  future  may  not  be  lost  to  the  civilized 
worhl. 

The  purpose  of  Your  Lordship's  writing  api)earing  to  be  to  notify  me 
of  the  opinions  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  hold  as  to  the  power 
of  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  to  decide  upon  certain  claims  for  indi- 
it'ct  losses  and  injuries  put  forward  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States,  I 
shall  hasten  tocommunicate  your  note  with  this  information  tomy  (lov- 
ernment. 

In  the  mean  time,  1  venture  to  assure  \  our  Lordship  that  the  Clovern- 
nient  of  the  L^nited  States  will  be  gratitietl  by  this  renewed  assurance 
of  the  desire  of  ller  Majesty's  (lovernment  that  no  obstacle  should  be 
interposed  to  the  prosecution  of  the  arbitration,  and  by  the  fraidc  and 
friendly  terms  in  which  this  statenuMit  of  their  views  is  made  to  me. 
The  objects  which  the  Govennnent  of  the  United  States  proposed  to 
itself  in  the  Treaty,  and  the  arbitration  for  which  it  provides  being  iden- 
tical with  those  stated  by  Your  Lordship — that  is,  the  tirm  establishment 
of  amicable  relations  between  tlie  two  countries  and  the  giving  to  the 
world  an  exami>le  showing  how  two  great  nations  can  settle  matters  in 
dispute  by  referring  them  to  an  impartial  tribunal — I  can  further  as- 
sure Your  Lordship  that  my  (Jovernment  does  reciprocate  most  fully 
and  earnestly  the  anxiety  that  the  speedy  settlement  by  arbitration, 
which  was  i>rovided  for  by  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  may  be  attained, 
so  that,  as  Your  Lordshij)  lias  eloquently  exi)re8sed  it,  an  example  so  full 
of  good  promise  for  the  future  may  not  be  lost  to  the  civilized  world. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  My  Lord,  Y'our 
IiOrdshi|>\s  most  obedient,  humble  servant, 

HOr.T.  C.  SCIIKNUK. 


i.,1  S.i-  ^ 


No. ."». 


Oeniral  Scheml-  1o  Mr.  Fisli. 
[Extract.] 

No.  U.S.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

J.omhn,  Februarif  10,  1871*.    (Received  February  2.'J.) 
1^1  j^.  *  *  «  *  *  «  *  * 

One  of  these  ilebates,  they  say,  was,  in  part  at  least,  in  the  lieariug  of 
the  United  States  Minister,  wlio  was  {tresent  in  the  House  of  Lords,  Jind 
^vas  doubtless  commuuicated  to  his  Government;  and  all  tlie  debates  on 


^2 
M 

1 

428 


TKKATV    OF    WA!<111N(;T<  >N. 


!l 


in 


that  occasion  must  have  been  caniedto  the  knowkMl};*!  ot'  the  (lovcm- 
inent  of  the  United  States  by  the  piintcil  and  published  reports,  and 
yet  no  protest  or  other  coninuinication  objectinj;'  to  such  interpretiitimi 
was  made  by  the  United  States  to  thisClovernment.  It  is  hehl,  therefdic. 
that  there  was  on  one  part  an  implied  aeqnieacence  in  that  nn'aniiii,^ 
fjiven  to  the  instrument.  Now,  I  had  suppose<l  that  the  treaty  haviii;,' 
been  conehided  aiul  published,  and  its  ])rovisions  and  lan;::uaj;e  carrying; 
with  them  their  own  meanin^jf,  to  be  interpreted  with  or  witliout  resmt 
to  the  lijfht  sui>plied  by  the  protocol  and  the  history  of  the  nefjotiatioii, 
we  were  hardly  obliged  to  fto  further  and  watch  for  what  mi^jflit  be  saiil 
on  the  subject,  pro  or  cow,  in  a  legislative  body  enfjaj^ed  in  discussion  on 
it.  lndee<l,  it  appears  to  me  that  remonstrances  or  criticisms  directed 
from  our  ( Jovernment  at  the  speeches  made  in  Parliament  might  jH)ssil»ly 
have  been  rej^arded  as  an  impertinence.  In  this  instance  we  were  ccr 
tainly  not  called  upon  to  take  either  the  side  of  J^ord  <Jairns  or  of  Jjonl 
(rranville  in  the  ditterence  between  them. 

It  seems  to  be  admitted  even  here  that  such  notice  of  what  was  said 
would  have  been  nncalle<l  for,  except  for  the  circumstance  that  the  Lords 
and  Mend)ers  of  J'arliament  who  argued  for  the  sanu^  IJritish  interpn- 
tation  now  put  forward  were  the  princ^ipal  Secretary  of  State  for  rorci;,ni 
Ati'airs  and  two  of  the  negotiators  of  the  Treaty. 

It  wouhl  keep  the  diplomatic  agents  of  the  United  States  in  London 
and  of  (Jnnit  lUitain  in  Washington  rather  busily  occupied  during  tiic 
sessions  of  Congress  and  of  rarliament  if  they  were  require<l  to  noti- 
and  report,  for  comment  or  answer  by  their  respective  Governments, 
whatever  might  be  said  in  those  assemblies,  at  the  risk  otherwise  of  Itein^ 
bound  and  concluded  by  all  the  declarations  mad'     )y  legisUitors. 

In  point  of  fact,  so  far  as  I  am  i)ersonally  concerned,  although  of  tin 
least  possible  ccmsequence,  I  can  state  that  1  was  only  present  at.  and 
heard,  the  speech  of  Lord  Kussell  in  the  House  of  Lords,  and  the  first 
speech  of  Lord  (Jranville  in  reply.  Our  interest  on  both  sides,  as  you 
will  see  from  my  dispatches  of  that  date,  was  at  that  time  conct'ntratiMl 
<»n  the  (piestion  of  interj)retatiou  and  defense  of  the  second  rule  in  tin- 
sixth  article. 

Hut  if  from  silence  is  to  be  argued  consent,  mark  how  inliuitcly 
stronger  a  case  on  this  princi[)le  we  Imd  against  (Jlreat  Britain,  but  which 
she  never  would  admit  the  force  of,  on  another  branch  of  the  negotia- 
tion of  the  Treaty  of  Washington.  Near  two  years  and  a  half  after  the 
treaty  of  1840,  ^Fr.  Bancroft,  then  our  Minister  here,  sent  to  Lord  Palm- 
erp<^on,  then  IJritish  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Att'airs,  a  copy  of  the 
United  States  surveys  of  the  waters  of  Puget  Souiul  and  those  dividinj,' 
Vancouver's  Island  from  our  territory,  accompanied  by  a  note  in  whidi 
be  said,  "Your  Lordship  will  readily  trace  the  whole  course  of  the  chan^ 
nel  of  llaro,  through  the  middle  of  which  our  boundary-line  passes." 
Lord  Palmerston  wrote  to  Mr.  Bancroft  in  reply,  thanking  him  for  tlio 
surveys,  but  not  taking  the  slightest  exception  to  the  statement  as  t»» 
the  position  of  the  boundary -line  which  they  have  since  so  fiercely  con 
tested,  ami  which  we  have  had  to  submit  to  arbitration. 


I  have  the  honor  to  be,  verv  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant. 

liOB'T  C.  SCIIENCK. 


COKRKSI'ONIUCNCK  RKSIMU'TlNt;    OKNKVA    AHItlTUATION. 


:<<».  «>. 


420 


General  Svlouck  fn  Mr.  Fish. 

[T.'li-i;nn.] 

liONDON,  Fchniiirif  'Jl ,  ISTU.  (Sent  ll'.;!U  p.  in.) 
(iniiivillc  iiitbi'iiu><l  iiic  ((Milidciitiiilly  liist  iii;;Iit  that  1  liorntou  lias 
U'lo{^i'ai)lu'(l  liiiii  that  AVas'inj'toii  t'abiin't  lia.s  i»'J('(;t('(l  your  (li:nij>lit  of 
i(j)ly  to  his  not*',  aiul  taken  tuithor  time  to  considtT,  but  that  you  Iiavt* 
su;rsc*sttMl  lio  shouhl  make  some  proposal,  lie  then  s;.ii«l  to  iiic  that  in 
his  note  of  third  he  had  stated  tiie  views  of  llcr  ^lajesty's  (Joveni- 
mont  as  to  indirect  «;laiiiis;  tliat  tiiere  were  otiier  portions  of  American 
Case  they  refjret,  and  some  of  which  ajjpear  to  introduce  matters  not 
;'crinaiu>  to  reference :  that  ho  has  not  been  able  to  <'onsult  ('al>inet 
lit'ie,  but  is  individually  i>rei)are«l  to  re<fommend  to  them,  and  thinks 
with  reasonable  expectation  of  success,  that  they  should  not  piess  for 
withdrawal  of  American  Case,  if  the  (loveriiment  of  tin?  Inited  States 
will  undertake  that  their  Aftent  shall  inform  Arbitrators  at  or  before 
ilieir  meeting'  in  June  that  the  United  States  <lo  not  ask  award  on  in- 
direct claims,  nor  that  such  claijns  should  be  taken  as  an  element  of 
consideration  in  a  j,'ross  award,  nor  brouyni  forward  in  case  of  refer- 
I'lice  to  assessors. 

1  made  no  comment,  except  to  say  that  this  was  only  etpiivalent  to 
iisking  us  to  withdraw  our  ( 'ase.  and  I  <4:ave  no  intimation  (>f  belief  that 
it  could  be  accepted. 

SCIIKNCK. 


'*■ . 


No.  7. 

Mr.  Fish  to  (icncral  SclivurJ:. 

[Tfl.'jjniiii.] 

Wasiiinutox,  Fihruarij  21,  1S7 2. 

licported   rejection  untrue.     Entire  unanimity.     Answer  now  being 
copied.    iJranvillc's  suggestion  inadmissible. 

FISH. 


No.  8. 


Mr,  Fi.sh  to  General  Svlwncl:. 

No.  144.)  Dei'Artment  or  State, 

Wanhington,  February  27,  I87li. 

8iR:  1  have  laid  the  note  from  Earl  Granville,  addressed  to  you, 
l>«vriug  date  the  3tl  of  February  instant,  before  the  President,  who 
directs  me  to  say  that  he  sincerely  desires  to  promote  that  firm  and 
abiding  friendship  between  the  two  nations  to  which  the  note  so  happily 
refers. 

It  was  under  the  inspiration  of  such  sentiments  that  he  accepted  the 
invitation  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  for  the  establishment  of  a  Joint 
High  Commission  to  treat  and   discuss  the  mode  of  settling  certain 


A 


Si'l 


430 


TKKATY    OF    WASHIN<JTn\. 


t 


qiKtstioiis  rc't'oried  to  tln'rciii,  ami  su<:{j('st(Ml  on  Iii.s  own  part  that  tin- 
proposed  ( \»nitnisHioii  should  also  liavo  authority  to  (consider  tho  n'lam  al 
of  tln'  dltt'oronces  which  arose  during  the  rebellion  in  the  United  States. 
j;rowin{j  out  of  the  a(!ts  coinniittetl  by  the  vessels,  which  have  n'wcu 
rise  to  the  (ilainis  jjenerically  known  as  the  "Alabama  <tlainis." 

It  was  Ids  earnest  hope  that  tho  deliberations  of  the  Conunission  would 
result  in  an  acceptance  by  I ler  Majesty's  (lovernment  of  the  i)ropositi(Mi, 
subnutted  by  his  direction,  that  a  fjross  sum  be  aj^reed  upon  and  i>ai(l 
to  the  United  States,  as  an  amicable  settlement  of  all  claims  of  ev(  rv 
description  arisinjj  out  of  such  differences,  instead  of  the  lenjjthencd 
<-ontroversy  and  litigation  which  he  foresaw  must  attend  any  plan  of 
arbitration.  He  was  the  more  solicitous  that  such  an  amicable  settle 
ment,  without  the  intervention  of  third  parties,  should  be  adopted, 
because  he  feared  tliat  so  thorough  and  comprelu'uslve  a  presentation 
b<>fore  the  Tribunal  of  ArbitratioJi  of  the  matters  of  law  and  of  fact  (»ii 
which  tlu'  claims  of  this  country  rest,  as  it  woidd  be  his  duty  to  cause 
to  be  made,  might,  for  the  moment,  revive  past  excitements  and  arouse 
unnecessaiy  ai)prehensions,  if  not  inperil  those  ties  of  internatioiiid 
kindness  and  good  will  he  so  much  desires  to  strenglhen  and  make 
perpetual. 

The  regn't  which  he  felt  for  the  rejwction  by  I  ler  Majesty's  Comiiiis 
sioners  (»f  the  proposition  for  an  anncable  settlement  is  revived  with 
great  force  by  the  necessity  of  this  correspomlence. 

Tho  proposition  for  a  Joint  High  Commission,  which  was  made  by  llei 
^Fajesty's  (rovernment,  would  not  have  received  the  approbation  of  the 
President  had  he  supposed  it  was  not  to  conquehend  a  consideration 
and  adjustment  of  all  the  ditlerences  growing  out  of  the  acts  of  tiie 
cruisers;  nor  could  he  have  given  his  sanction  to  the  Treaty  had  it  been 
suggested  to  him  or  had  he  believed  that  any  class  of  the  claims  which 
had  been  presented  by  this  (JovernnuMit  were  excluded  by  the  terms  ot 
submissi(»n  from  i)resentation  on  tln^  part  of  this  (Government  to  the 
Tribunal  of  Arbitration.  It  was,  in  his  ai)i)reciation,  the  chief  merit  ol 
the  mode  of  adjustment  adopted  by  the  Uommission,  that  it  was  on  both 
sides  a  frank,  full,  and  unreserved  surrender  to  impartial  arbitrament, 
under  the  rules  therein  i)rescribed,  of  everything  that  had  created 
such  ditt'crences.  Whatever  degree  of  iniportance  might  here  or  tliere 
b«',  attached  to  any  of  these  complaints,  the  President  desired  and  in- 
tende<l,  as  had  the  American  Commissioners,  that  all,  of  every  foiin 
and  character,  should  be  laid  before  the  Tribunal  for  its  tinal  and  abso- 
lute disposition,  either  by  recognition  and  .settlement,  or  by  rejection, 
in  order  that  in  the  future  the  harmony  of  personal  and  political  iiiti^r 
course  between  the  two  countries  might  never  again  be  disturbed  by 
any  i)()ssible  phase  of  the  (controversy. 

In  his  oi)inion,  since  entry  upon  a  thorough  trial  of  the  issues  wliicli 
divide  the  two  (lovernments  could  not  be  avoide<l,  the  claims  for  national 
or  indirect  losses,  (referred  to  in  the  note  of  Earl  (rranville,)  as  they 
are  i)ut  forward  by  this  (lovernment,  involv<^  ipiestions  of  public  law 
which  the  interests  of  both  (irovernments  require  should  be  definitely 
settled. 

Therefore  it  is  with  imfeigned  suri)rise  and  sincere  regret  that  the 
President  has  received  the  intimation,  conveyed  in  Earl  Granville's  note, 
that  Jler  INIajesty's  (lovernment  hold  that  it  is  not  within  the  province 
of  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  to  decide  upon  certain  claims  for  imlireet 
losses  and  injuries. 

His  Lordship,  however,  does  not  a.ssign  anj'  reason  for  the  opinion  that 
losses  and  injuries  with  respect  to  which  there  has  been  no  conceal 


rOK'K'KSl'ONKFACK    RKSPKCTIM;    (iKNKVA    AKIUTKA  I'lON.      4.'U 

iiifiit — which  were  pii'SfiittMl  to  the  Ilritish  lu'j^otiators  at  tlic  (»|u'iiiiiji- 
of  the  <li.s(!iissioii  in  precisely  the  same  iiiaiiiu'r  as  they  are  put  tbrwani 
ill  the  "Case" — not  as  chiiuis  for  which  a  specilit;  deiiiiUMl  was  math', 
bat  as  U>sses  and  injuries  consequent  upon  tlio  acts  coiiiphtined  of,  and 
necessarily  to  betaken  intoe«piitabh'  consi<lei'ation  in  a  tlnal  settlement 
of  all  dillcrences  between  the  two  countries,  which  remained  unchal- 
lenged through  the  entire  negotiations,  and  not  reliii(|uisiicd  in  tlu> 
Treaty,  but  covered  by  one  of  its  alternatives,  are  not  within  the  Juris- 
diction of  the  Arbitrators. 

Unadvised  as  to  the  reasoning  which  has  brought  llcr  Majesty's  (i»»v- 
('rnment  to  the  opinion  stated  by  liord  (Jranvilh*,  tlu'  rresitlent  is  nimble 
i(»  a«h)pt  it;  but,  being  convinced  of  the  Justice  ol"  his  views  that  tin* 
Treaty  (;onteniplated  the  settlement  of  all  the  claims  of  the  rnifcd  States. 
is  of  the  opinion  that  he  touid  not  abandon  them,  except  after  a  fail' 
lU'cision  by  an  im[»artial  arbitration.  He  seeks  no  nu-aning  in  the  Treaty 
which  is  not  |»atent  on  its  Iju^e;  he  advance's  no  in'ctensions  at  (ieneva 
which  were  not  i)Ut  forth  jieiHling  tlu^  negotiations  at  Washington. 

This  Government  knows  m)t  where  to  find  the  meaning  or  the  intent 
of  the  Treaty  unless  within  the  Treaty  itself. 

The  object  of  the  Ticaty,  as  declared  in  its  i)reamble,  was  "  to  juovide 
tor  an  amicable  settlement  of  all  causes  ol  ditlereiu^e  between  the  two 
countries;"  but  the  Treaty  is  not,  of  itself,  the  settlement;  it  is  an 
iijjreement  between  the  (Joverninents  as  to  the  mode  of  reaching  a  set- 
tliMiient,  ami  its  Article  XI  engages  the  contracting  parties  to  consider 
tiie  result  of  the  arbitration  as  a  full,  perfect,  and  iinal  settlement  of  all 
the  claims.  Kntil  that  be  reache«l,  no  i>rot!er  of  withholding  an  esti- 
mate of  the  indirect  losses,  dependent  on  the  hope  of  an  ami<*ablc  settle- 
ment, can  be  claimed  as  a  waiver  or  an  estopiiel. 

The  first  article  re(!ites  that  differences  have  arisen  between  the  two 
(iovernments,  and  still  exist,  and  provides,  "in  onler  to  remove  and 
iidjust  all  complaints  and  claims  on  the  i)art  of  the  United  States,  that 
nil  the  claims  (jron-imj  out  of  acts  committed  by  the  aforesaid  vessels,  ami 
;'euerically  known  as  the 'Alabama  claims,'"  be  referred  to  a  tribunal 
of  arbitration,  to  be  composed  as  therein  provided.  There  is  no  limita- 
tion or  restriction  to  any  part  or  description  of  the  claims.  All  the 
ilaims  grow iiig  out  of  certain  acts,  and  generically  known  as  the  "Ala- 
'lama  claims,''  were  referred.  What  they  ^vere  is  a  <|uestion  of  fact  and 
Df  history.  Which  of  them  are  well  lounded  is  a  <]iiestion  lor  the  Tri- 
bunal of  Arbitration. 

What  are  called  the  indirect  losses  and  claims  are  not  now  put  forward 
tor  the  first  time.  Tor  years  they  have  been  prominently  and  histori- 
rully  i)art  of  the  "Alabama  claims."' 

It  would  be  superfluous  to  quote,  or,  perha|)S,  even  to  refer  to,  i>ar- 
lieular  passages  in  the  publishe<l  instructions  of  this  Government  to 
tlieir  minister  to  Great  Britain ;  in  the  notes  of  that  minister  to  Her 
Majesty's  I'riucipal  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs;  or  in  other 
imblic  papers,  to  show  that  the  expectation  of  this  Government  has, 
troiu  the  beginning  of  the  acts  which  gave  rise  to  the  "Alabama  claims," 
lieiii  that  the  British  Government  would  indemnify  the  United  States. 
Incidental  or  consequential  damages  were  often  mentioned  as  included 
ill  the  accountability. 

Ill  the  progress  of  the  acts  w  hich  gave  rise  to  the  claims,  high  British 
iiuthority  was  not  wanting  to  warn  Her  Majesty's  Government  in  the 
House  of  Commons  that "  they  had  been  inflicting  an  amount  of  damage 
on  that  country  (the  United  States)  greater  than  would  be  produced  by 


^1 

it 

h 

m 

fli' 

1 

Kfl^HELt.r 

■Btt'n^'i^ 

t* 

^^^^^m- 

'/< 

JL 

1 

[  1 

1'i 


!  < 


.3^ 


TKKATV    MF    WASHINCToN. 


piiiiiiy  ordiiiaiy  vvjirs,"  iUid  U*  iit(li<'at«',  :is  piirt  of  tluil  diiiiiii^c,  the  i<»ss«'.s 
to  whose  {jri'scnliitioii  fxccptioii  is  now  tak«Mi. 

I'litilic  iiicn  ill  i)(>tli  countries  diseiissed  llieni.  while  tlie  ])nl)!i('  pn'sv 
on  llh(^  one  side  iin<i  on  the  otlier  advaneetl  and  eoii)l)ate<i  them  \vit!i 
an  eainestness  and  warmth  that  l)ron<iht  (hem  into  a  prominence  he 
vond  the  diri'ct  losses  and  injuries  sustained  hy  indivi<lnals. 

A  detailed  stateiiant  ol'  their  claims,  ennmeratinj;' and  settin;^  lorfli 
the  imlirect  1oss«\m  jn-eeisely  a:<  they  iiiv  a<ivaiM'ed  in  the  Case,  was  siih 
iiiilted  l»y  tlie  American  ne^jiotialois  t(»  the  Joint   1 1  iirli  Commission  \u 
the  tirst  discussion  ol  J  he  «!aims,  on  the  St  h  day  <d  .Marc'u,  a"d  aj)|)i';ii^ 
in  the  I'lotoeol,  ai)|>rove<l  on  the  Ith  day  of  May, 


Her  Majesty's  ( io\  einment,  therel'^re,  caiiiiot,  in   the  absence  of  lu 


IV 


spo'itic  ••\cliisi(in  oi  these  daim.^i's  l»y  the  Treaty,  he  said  to  he  taken 
unawai'es  hy  tiieir  iMcsentatioii  to  the  Trihunal,  and  the  President  \\as 
:iot  al  liheity  to  reuar<l  as  willidrawn  or  settled  any  of  tlic  claims 
•  'numerated  in  a  stateni<'i;t  prepared  ami  ;!iipr<;ved  l>y  the  -loint  Ili;;li 
(Commission  after  their  d.isenssioiis  were  clos.ed,  and  within  four  days  ot' 
the  .si;;!iiniidf  a  treaty  which  declaies  that  the  dilferenees  which  li  til 
arisen  w!  Ii  resjicct  to  the  '.Mabama  (•iaims"  still  exist.  .\ppeariii,u 
tims.  Ironi  whati-ver  caii^^e.  not  to  have  been  eliminated  from  the 
eiiumeiated  claims  ot  the  I  nit  cd  States,  t  he  I'lesidenl  had  no!  the  power, 
ol  his  own  accord,  to  withhold  them  iVomthe  (.'ase.  to  be  j)rescnted  to 
the  TrilMinal  of  .\rbitration ;  but  in  frankness  and  in  sincerity  of  jiiir 
pose  to  remove,  in  tiie  spirit  of  the  Treaty,  all  causes  of  dilfeicnce  he 
tween  the  two  < lovi  riimeiits,  he  has  set  them  Ibrth  before  the  Ceiieva 
Tribunal,  conlent  t(;  aece|)t  ary  award  that  the  Tribunal  may  think  ii! 
to  make  <in  their  ac<'onnt. 

It  is  within  your  person. il  knowhMli^e  that  this  (Io\enimenl  has  neve: 
expected  oi' desired  any  uuic  as(nial'le  pecnniar\  <'ompensalion  on  ilieii 
account,  and  has  aever  entertained  the  visionary  thonj^ht  of  sm-li  an 
exi'':iva,iiant  meas'.ire  of  damajics  as  tinds  expression  in  the  excited  Inn 
;„niaf;e  of  the  !5rit''>^h  press,  and  seems  most  unact'ouMtably  t.i  havi'  taken 
])oss«'ssion  of  the  minds  of  some,  even,  of  the  statesnu'n  (»f  (iieai 
SU'itain. 

A  mixed  <ominissiou  is  now  in  session  in  this  city,  under  tlie  Treaty. 
to  which  aro  refeireil  all  claims  of  citizens  or  subjects  of  oither  I'owei 
(otiicr  than  .Mabama  j-laims)  which  arose  out  of  acts  coniii.itted  during 
il.  sp«'('itied  jieriod. 

In  tho  corre^pondence  which  pveceded  the  a^iecmeut  for  the  mei'tiiiu 
of  th(^  .It):nt  ni;;h  Commission  v  hich  iii'j;'otiate«l  tli«>  Treaty,  lan;;uiiuc 
was  purposely  a, .reed  upon  and  used  to  t'.xpress  the  idea  which  the  rep 
re.sentative.Hof  the  two  (lovtMnmontsentcrlaiiU'd,  tliat  no  claim  foiintlci! 
on  coidraet,  uid  es|)i{Mally,  no  claim  on  s.ccouid  of  the  rebel  or  coiiteil 
crate  cotton  <  old,  was  to  Ix^  prcH' ..:  jd.  Sinniar  ian;;ua^e,  and  for  l in' 
Hamc  a\o\ved  and  admitted  j)urpos»',  was  used  in  tln^  Treaty. 

Amonj,^  other  claims  of  an  uncqiectcd  charact«'r  presented  by  tlir 
a;;oid  of  the  IJritish  CiovernnuMd .  there  was  om  Idr  a  p,.rt  of  tho.  coiiloil 
erate  d(d)t,  w'hi(!h  is  understooil  to  be  hcid  in  (Ireat  l.ritaiii  to  tlif 
extent  of  many  n»illions.  Immediately  on  its  prcseidation  the  rnitiil 
Stares  remonstrated,  ami  roipiested  the  Ilritish  <loveniment  to  instrmi 
their  aju'cnt  to  withdraw  that  chtim.  Their  r<'monsf  rancc  was  nidiee(lt'il ; 
thi'ir  r«Mpn'st  wan  aot  answered  If  ai»y.  instruction  was  ;:;iven,  this 
(1  >vernment  was  not  informed  thereof,  and  it  failed  to  In- ob.servcd : 
and  the  claim  was  j)H'ssed  to  ar;;nment.  The  ['nited  States  (hMiiiurcd 
before  tho  commission  to  its  Jurisdiction  ovci  claimsof  that  description, 


""■  !     ■  '^t 


CORIIKSPO.'DEXCE    RESPKCTIXG    GENEVA    AKIUTRATIOX.      4.^3 

;ui(l  tlio  decision  of  tlic  "oiuinissioii  disposeil  of  the  case  adverse  to  the 
diii'iiiiiit. 

Tlie  attitude  of  the  two  (M)vernmepts  is  now  reversed,  witli  thcdijfei'- 
,ii(;e  in  favor  of  tlie  f^nited  Stat«'s,  that  tliere  was  no  (lucstioii  raiscil  as 
[0  the  nncUM'standin;;'  of  l)oth  ^iovernnn'nts  at  the  date  of  tlif  'I'reatv, 
with  reference  to  the  evchision  of  chiinis  of  the  (diaraeter  llit-n  pre- 
sented. 

The  United  States  seek  ]n>t  to  he  thejndfje  in  their  own  ease. 

The  course  which  they  pnrsucd  alfonh'd  a  happy  solution  to  \\hi\\ 
iiijiht  liav*'  been  a  ipn'stion  of  eiiii)arras.snuMit. 

They  desire  to  maintain  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Tribunal  ofAi'bitra- 
iinii  over  all  the  unsettled  claims,  in  order  that,  beiny  Judicially  dnidcd. 
,111(1  the  questions  of  law  involved  therein  Ix'injL;  adjudicated,  all  (|iii's- 
;ioiis  connected  with  or  arisiiij;'  out  of  the  Alabama  claims,  oi"  '•  ;;c(»\v- 
ill),' (uit  of  the  acts"  of  the  cruisers,  may  be  forever  removed  Irom  the 
Itossibility  of  disturbinj;;'  the  {lerfect  harmony  of  relations  between  the 
i\v(i  countries. 

The  President  reji'rets  that  there  should  be  any  difll't  i  -nu'e  ni'  opinion 
iM'tween  the  two  Ciovernm  Mits  on  any  (juestion  <;onne''ted  with  the 
In'iity. 

He  indulges,  however,  the  eainest  hope  that  the  disposition  which 
liiis  been  e(pially  manifested  by  both  (lovernments  to  reie  /ve  all  <  .nises 
of  (litVerence  between  them  will  lu'in},'  tluMU  to  an  a;;ret'ment  upon  (he 
I  incidental  (pu'sticm  which  has  aiisen,  and  will  aUow  lu)  obstacle  to  de- 
jiiivc  the  world  »)f  the  example  of  advanced  civilization  prescnteil  Ity 
! '«(»  powi'rlul  States  exhibiunu  the  supremacy  of  law  and  of  reason  o\ei' 
|i;i>sions,  and  «leferrinji'  their  own  judgments  to  the  calm  inteipretat ion 

ii  ;i  disinterested  and  diseriminatiny  tribuiuil. 
J  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

HAMILTON    riSII. 


[i».  > 


No.  9. 


Mr.  Fi.sli  (i>  (uHcral  Srhcnch: 


\<'.  1  ir>.J  J)K1"AI{T\IKNT  OK  StA  TK, 

Wasliiiif/ion,  Fi'linuti'!/  Ill,  ]'>'J. 
1  l;ive  to  ackn(»wle«l;;e  your  No.  i;{1>,  of  liate  of  February  <5,  inclosiji<; 
"j>y  of  I'iart  (Jranville's  note  to  you  of  the  .'Jd  instant,  and  of  \onr 
ifply. 
ViMir  answer  to  ICarl  (Iranville  is  nmrked  with  your  usual  intelliiicncc 
ill!  prudence,  and  nu'cts  the  warm  approval  of  the  I'resident. 
Veil  will  iv'ceive  her«'with  a  dispatch  of  the  same  date  with  this,  yiv- 
::  the  opinion  ol'  this  ( iovei  nment  on  the  tpu'stion   suddenly  and  at)- 
!|itly  rais«'d   by   Her  ]\laj«'sty's  (lovernment,  and   prcsi'iit*-*!   b_N  li.irl 
|iir,iiiville  nakedly  and  without  any  ■'.iy:ument. 

\itlioiiyh  no  reply  is  iii\ited  l»y  the  note  «d'  tiie  liritish  (loveriinient. 
llii' settlement  of  all  causes  of  ditfereiMM!  between  lln»  two  count  lies,  and 
llHsiiccfssrul  example  ottlie  mode  of  settling'  international  dilfeiencfs 
f''.ii»lished  by  the  Tn-aty,  are  s(»  earnestly  desired  by  this  (io\  einmeiil. 
I'l'iit  we  acc<'pt  the  frientlly  assuraiuu's  of  the  IJritish  note,  disrcyaidiii'i 
i^ hold  and  sudden  annonncemeiit  (d'an  o|>inion  which  we  think  iinsiis 
I'liiifd  by  the  history  of  the  ncjuotiatioiis  between  the  t  wo  ( loxci  iiiiieiif  s, 
"I  hy  the  events  which  jjave  rise  to  the  claiujs,  and  for  which  we  see  no 
|i";;K'al  t'onndati(Mi  in  th«'  Treaty  itself. 
L*8  A— II 


434 


TREAT V   OF    WASrilNOTOX. 


'U 


Y(tii  will,  tlioroforo,  road  tlu'  dispatcli  roffiriMl  to  to  Lord  Graiivilk'. 
and  may  U'avo  with  liiiii  a  (-opy  in  caNo  he  ilt'wirt'.s  it. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obe«U«'nt  servant, 

HAMILTON  FISH. 


No.  10. 


Ocncral  Srhcnck  to  Mr.  Fish. 
[  r«'l«'Kn»iii.l 

London.  Frhnian/  L'H,  IH72.    (Sent  ">.  10  p.  m.) 

(Iranvillc  (h'sircs  me  to  send  channt'ol' lauyua^c  of  li is  proposal,  as lol 
lows:  Alter  word  ".lime,"  sahslilute  "that  the  liiited  States  do  not  a.sK 
the  Arbitrators  to  admit  or  take  into  tli<>ir  eotisiih'ration  these  indinct 
elaims,  eitiier  as  ehMuents  for  tiie  determination  of  any  one  sum  in  <;ri).ss 
whi<'h  tiiey  may  award  in  case  of  decision  ;i;^iiinst  (lr«'at  llrilain  mi  tlir 
point  of  liability  for  any  of  tlu'  vessels,  or  olhei'wise:  iiinl  that  in  v.im- 
of  damairi's  Itein^j^  referred  to  assessors,  they  will  not  brin;Lj  Ibrwiird  tluH' 
cliiims  bfl'Mi-e  the  assessois." 

'lliis  variation  ol  words  does  not  seem  to  me  to  chanjii'  meaninir. 

SCIIKM  Iv. 


No.  11. 

Mr.  Fi.slt  to  (iciiirtil  Schnicl,', 
(.'i'.Ic;;raiii.  I 

J)Ki'Airr'\ri',NT  or  Statt:, 

WiisliliiiitDn,  Filtriiiirji  '2U.  i^ii'. 

Cannot  aLiree  to  (Iranville's  proposal  as  made.  Desire  to  meet  the 
Mritish  (Government  in  any  honiu'abh  adjustment  of  the  incidt'iit;il 
qiM'stion  which  has  arisen.  Our  answri-  is  vi  ry  friendly,  ami  will,  nc 
hop!',  open  the  way  foi' a  s«'ttlemenl.  U'hat«^ver  the  Uritish  roininis 
sioncrs  may  have  inten«led.  or  thon^jlit  annmj;  themsj'Ives,  tln'y  did  not 
elindnate  the  claims  for  indirect  losses,  they  ne\ei' asUcd  us  jo  witlith;i\v 
them,  nor  did  they  alhide  to  them  directly,  or  in  |dain  teiins  ;  and  atlrr 
the  delilu'rations  of  th**  .loint  ('omnnssion  went  closed,  'renterdeii  ami 
the  Ibitisli  Commissioners  allowed  them  to  be  fornndly  ennmeratcil  in 
statemeid  of  Ith  Mav  without  a  word  of  ilissent. 

FISH. 


No.  12. 

(Irnerol  Sclnnck  tn  Mr,  Finli. 

[Kxtruct.j 

TiKOATION  OF  TTIE  TTnITED   STATES', 
London^  March  HJ,  1.S72.     (lieeeived  April  I.) 

•  •••**• 

On  the  day  of  the  reeei)tion  of  your  note  of  the  27th  of  Febniinv 
and  within  a  few  hours  after  itH  arrival,  I  was  enabled  tu  iuivu  an  inter 


No.  170.] 


CORRKSrOXDENCE    RESPECTlXCi    (IE VENA    ARlUTRATinv.      435 

viow  with  Lord  Onjuvillo  at  the  I'oivi^xii  Offlco,  with  a  viow  to  maUins 
liiiii  iu'(|iiaiiit«'(l,a;;n'i'al>ly  to  your  iiistructioiis,  with  its  coiitciits.  Vonr 
(uiiiiuiiiiication  had  bci'ii  h)okrd  fur  l»y  thi*  (iovurniuciit  here  with  ••real 
.iiixiety. 

|-"(»Ih)wiii};  ill  siiltstaiice  the  hnijiiia^e  of  your  Xo.  ll."»,  I  hcyfaii  by  siy- 
[<)ii  that,  altlioiifih  Ilrr  Majesty's  (lovcriiineiit  liad  not  invited  any  reply 
-II  tlieir  note,  !uit  liad  heeii  eonteiit  to  make  a  naked  annoniiceiiHMit.  nn- 
.iccdiiipaiiied  by  reasttns  or  arf^iiiiuMit,  of  tlieir  opinion  tliat  certain  of 
tin-  claiins  put  forward  by  the  Ignited  Slates  in  their  Case  iMes«'iit«'d  at 
(li'iieva  did  not  «'ome  witliin  the  itrovinci'  of  the  TrilMinal  of  Arbitration 
Mileeide,  yt't  such  was  the  eariu'st  (U'siic  of  my  (lovcrnincnl  lor  a  scl- 
ilfiiient  of  all  dilferenees  between  the  twocountrii's.  and  for  tlie  success- 
nil  cariAiny;  out  t»f  a  treaty  which  olVered  to  the  world  so  ^^nod  an  c\am- 
;il(' of  a  pea<'efnl  ami  ('IVcftivt'  method  for  lh«>  ri'ino\a'  .  f  internalitMial 
litrieiilties,  that  the  President  was  most  ready  to  a«'eepi  tlu'  assiiram'es 
lit  the  friendly  feeliiifis  which  had  prompted  that  note:  and  that  you 
iiiid  communicated  to  me  in  a  <lispat<-li,  with  some  fullness,  the  opinion 
iiid  views  of  the  (^lovernmeiit  of  the  rnited  S"at«'s  on  the  point  whi«'h 
i.iv  had  raised.  I  said  also  to  Lord  (Iranvillc  that  I  was  anlliori/<Ml  to 
.i;i(i  to  him  the  dispatch  referred  to,  and,  if  he  desired  it,  to  leave  \\  ilh 
liiiii  a  copy  of  it. 

lie  remarked  to  me  that,  beiny-  just  then  pressed  and  oeeiipied  as  1 
iiKist  know  he  was,  if  I  wen-  to  read  it  he  should  not  proliahly  make  it 
'III' subject  id'  any  comment  at  that  time;  and  lie  said,  if  a^ieeable  to 
111!',  therefore,  and  imderstandinu  that,  antieipnf Jn^;'  his  reipsest  tor  a 
lopy,  1  had  one  already  pn'pand,  lie  would  ask  me  to  lea\e  that  with 
liiiii  that  I.  Mii;:iif  have  it  to  lay  itelore  the  <';ibiiiet  at  an  early  meetiiiji. 
T!:is,  of  '  >:;;  e,  I  cuiiseiited  (o  do.  I  ;ia\e  him  the  copy.  tlieri'Ibre,  leav- 
iiu  hint  to  ri'tiirn  to  the  ilonse  of  Lords,  iiom  which  he  had  been  liiir- 
iicilly  called  to  meet  his  appointment  with  me. 

I'.efore  we  parted,  howexcr,  1  th<»ii;;lit  it  pi nprr  to  say  to  his  L(»rdship 
ii;ii  as  Jier  .Majest  v's  ( Joveriiinent  would  undoubtedly  take  a  little  time, 
:  iliitps  a  few  days,  to  consider  whether  they  slhtiild  make  ;in\  answer, 
iiid  wlial  answer,  to  this  commiiincaticm   liom  the  riiiied  Slates,  if  at 
iiiy  time  in  the  int«'rval  he  (hciiied  it  advisable,  in  the  inten-st  of  our 
AM  countries,  to  liav*'  fr«'e,  conlideiiiial  convcisation  with  me.  or  if  he 
Mioaiiht  that  jjood  understandin;;  nii.iiht  be  promoted  by  any  exchanji'e 
■I  iiiiollicial  sii;4;i('sii(Mis  toiichiiiy  some  iiiodi'  of  issue  from  our  present 
"iii|ilication,  1  would  al\va,\  >  be  happy  to  meet  liim  and  cooperate  w  ith 
iiiiii  ill  such   frii'iidly  endeaviM-.     He  as.seiited  sit  oiiee  lordially  to  the 
I'ltipriety  of  our  keepinj^  ourselves  in   such   relation  and  free  iiiiollieial 
lilt' rcoiirse  with    liK-li    other;   Ituf    he  did   not  express  hiniMll   as  ho[te 
tiillv,  HH  he  thoujjfht  1  did,  id  an  ultimate  sati-sfactiiry  adjustment. 
J  have  the  lionor  to  be,  v<'rv  respect fiilh,  voiir  (dtedieiit  servant, 

L'OliT.  C.  SCJlLNt  K. 


No.  IX 
Ocncml  Srhrnrk  to  Xr.  FIhIi. 


N'>.  IHO.]  LkOATION  of  THE  r^tTEI)  STATES, 

lomlon,  Mnrrh  Ui,  ISTl'.     (Received  April  i.) 
Sill :  I  have  Imi-rly  timt  tx)  tnuiMinit,  fn  uh  to  catch  at  (^iieenstown 
'liv  mail  which  ha«  left  Livert>ool  t«-day,  the  nply  of  I^ord  (iranville  to 


hi 


4r.G 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


.vonr  (lispiitch  of  the  L*7th  Fobniiiiy.  It  c.uiw  to  me  at  cloven  (H-lork 
last  iii<,'lit,  siinl  the  printed  "Menioiiunhnn''  whieli  nccoinpaiiies  ir  its  im 
inrlosure,  and  wiiieh  is  to  l>e  taken  as  a  part  of  tl>e  eoninninicalion. 
readied  ine  only  this  alter  noon. 

I  send  also,  lu'rewilli,  a  <'opy  of  my  answer  to  his  J^(»rdship,  aeknowl 
edjiin;;  the  reeeipt  of  his  note  and  the  '*  Memorandnin." 

Yim  will  <»l>serve  that  Her  Majesty's  (lovernrnent  hav*;  eonstrned  ymn 
dispateh  to  me  as  eontainin;;  appai'ently  an  invitation  to  open  tiillv  a 
discussion  with  yon  on  tlu^  (jnestion  of  the  riy:ht  of  the  I'nited  Stutcs 
to  inihnle  in  their  Case  presented  at  (lenevaany  claim  for  indirect  losses 
or  daMia;;es.  There  is  iiothm;''  advaniu'd,  however,  either  in  the  way  of 
any  proposal  for  the  removal  of  the  dinicnlty  between  ns,  or  intimatiiii; 
^\ilat  may  he  the  conse(pience  in  case  of  continneil  «lilfcrence  of  opinjun, 
Ir  is  still  bnt  the  notic»^  which  was  contained  in  honl  (rranville's  note  ni 
tile  .'>d  ultimo,  acconipani«'d  now  by  the  reasons  which  have  led  llci 
Majesty's  (i.kvcrniiient  to  the  conclusion  which  was  then  irommnnicated. 

liiit  I  must  close  in  haste,  without  further  coinmetit. 
1  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  vonr  obedient  servant, 

itoirr.  c.  scuKNcK. 


It 

i 


•»... 


if 


[IlirloHiirr  1  ill  Xii.  i;(.) 
Earl  (ii'atirilh  to  (iiiierul  Schtiuh. 

FoitKUJN  f)|-KlCK.  ^f<ln■h  '20.  l-:j. 

Sii: :  I  liuvo  laiil  lul'oir  my  colli-a^iius  Jfr.  ri-^li's  (lispalrli  «it'  the  VTlli  iiltiiini  h| 
w  i.icli,  at  my  ii'iiiicst,  aiul  aiitlmri/i'tl  liy  your  (iiiNt'i'iimcrit,  ymi  yav  «•  iii<-  a  <'<>|>y  ><i>.  ;l.i 
1  ttli  iiittaiit. 

Ilir  Maji'sty's  (Jovcriimriit  rcfo^iii/i'  willi  i>li'asiiif  (In-  a^smaiiccs  of  tlir  l'ic>iiliii! 
that  lt<t  siiii'i-rcls  (Icsin-N  to  |ii<'m<it<'  a  linn  anil  almiin;;  iVii'iiilsliii)  lirtwcrii  tin-  |\\o 
lia!i<iiiH:  ami.  aiiimati-il  liy  t  lir  >ami' spii  ll,  tiif\  ;;lail!\  asail  tiii'm>i'l  vt-s  itf  iliv  iuMi:!- 
;ii>ii  wiiirli  yniir  (i(t\  crinnriil  ajipfiir  to  liavr  j;ivrii,  lliat  ihry  slioiilil  siatr  llu-  iiax-,.- 
M'liirli  inilmi'il  tlii'iii  to  make  tlir  ilri'laratioii  coiitaim'il  in  mv  noti'  to  yon  of  ihr  .M 
nit  lino,  ami  wiiiili  1  ilim  imrposi'ly  omitti'il.  in  tin-  liii|ic  of  olilainin^,  wltlioiit  ,i:is 
k  i>nu'o\  i'i>ial  ili^inssion,  tin'  assent  of  tin-  (iosi'inmrnt  of  tlir  I  niinl  Statrs. 

Ml.  I'isli  says.  ••  W'iiat  air  talii'il  tlu'  imliifct   lossi-s  ami  flaims  arc  not  now  |iiii  i>\ 
waiil  tor  till'  tir>l  time,     i'or  ,\i'ais  tlicy  liavr  lirni  |>roinlm'nily  ami   liisioriiailv  |i;ii! 
of  till- '.\laliama  claims.'     It  wouli!  I»c  sii]iciIImoiis  to  i|notc,  or  |ii'ilia|is  cvfii  to  iciii 
t<«.  ]iai'ti('ulai'  |iassa<;i'>.  in  tiic  imllislird  insirnctions  of  iliis  (iovi-t  nimiit   to  tlii'ir  Miii- 
i.-.t>i  to  tinat  Kiitain,  in  liir  iioIim  ol  that  Ministtr  to  ll<  r  .Maji>t.\".s  I'rim  ipal  SiTniiii> 

ot'  Mall-  for  |-"oi('i;;n  AH'aiis,  or  in  olhrr  inihiic  iiapcis,  to  sliow  that   tln<  rx|M'it;ii 

tit'  thi«  (io\cinmrnl  lias.  I'loni  thf  iirv.inniiiH;  of  tiir  :i('tM  \>  hirh  ;;a><'  risr  to  tin- 'Ala 
liaimi  I'laitiiN,'  liri-n  that  tlic  Iliitish  (in\  (Miinicnt  would  imh-mnifx  tlM>  I'liitt'il  .^lati's 
Iiii  iili'iititl  or  <-onsi'i|ncnt  ial  ilama;;rN  wt'ic  often  mciitioncil  a.s  imluilt-il  in  tin-  ariiniiii' 
aliiiily.''  This  assertion  Woes  not  appear  to  me  aeiiiiately  to  lepieseiit  the  fai'tH  a>  liny 
Ul>-  >ll>'\Vll  in  the  eoriespoml'-nce  liitween  the  t  Wo  ( lOVeiiimilltM.  It  is  tine  llull  ill 
(■•line  of  the  earlier  letters  of  Mr.  Ailams  va;Line  slimiest  ions  were  made  as  to  jto'-sil'li' 
lialiilities  of  tl  is  eonnt  i>  extendin;^  lievomi  the  direi  t  elaiins  of  Vineiieaii  eiti/i  ii*  lui 
b;iei  die  losses  ill  isiii^  tViiiii  t  he  capture  ot  their  \  i  «se|s  Ity  the  Alaliaiiia,  I'loiitlM.  ^Uiu- 
undoidi,  and  (ieor^ia  :  Init  no  clidms  were  e\er  ilelined  oi  tormniated,  and  eeii.inil.N 
liolie  were  esei  deselilied  liy  the  phrase  '•Alal-.  ma  chuHii,"  I'Xcept  tlle.H«' diivci  elailli^'il 
Ano  riean  eiti/eii>. 

No  mention  of  any  claim  for  national  or  indirect  losses  had  lM>ei<  Ntiiile  dm  in^  tin 
Ise^oli.itioii,  comme-icin;;  w  Ith  Mr.  Si-w  aiil's  ilispateh  to  Mr.  Adam>,  il»t«-d  th-  '  ;■  ■'• 
An;;iist,  |.-Crt!,  tind  eii.liii}.^  willi  the  si;;iiatnre  of  th<  CoiiM-utiun  of  the  l«»lh  <<  V'^  "■ 
l..n.  iMi'',  tty  l.iiid  Stanley  and  .Mr.  Rt  \erd.\  .(ohit-*»ii.  by  the  IVth  \rticle  «•!  ml:i(li 
ifiwer  was  nixeii  to  ('ommi'-Hiiniers  "  to  adjndii.ttt  iu»t»ii  the  class  of  chiimv  re*"-i«!  ■ 
111  I  h)i  oihejal  col  respondeiice  lietwceii  the  I  w  «>  ( MmrriiincMtM  as  t    «• 'Alalm.'Ki  .  i.i 

The  llist  Mihsei|miit  mention  ol'  any  cla'iii  fer  nutiomil  I(mh<'>  whs  in  i«  <-«mih'  n,,'  . 
tioii.  iinaiithoii/i  li  l>y  his  (JoMiniiiciit.  maiie  hy  .Mi.  lieveidy  hdii»»«».  m  ^ai  a.  1-' 
to  Lord  Claiemlon,  in  which  he  sii;;i;estitd  thai  the  icrms  ot  ihe  ('i>ii^  eutKUi  si^iiei!  I'> 
hiu  with  Lord  Clarendon,  on  the  lllh  of  .lariMury.  which  conifN-  !«»2  n  r»-l'«'rencc  te  :i 
Mixed  ('ominission  of  the  "Alahama  claims,"  «honld  he  eiihir;t«-.  ^.  a»  >>  i(u!iid.:i! 
V  luuim  on  tliv  i>iirl  ul  vithcr  (jiuvcMiiiii-iit  ii|m«u  thu  otUc-r,  uii  etMM*«*iwl  cinuUliou  ot  i  i* 


www] 


I'S  it  ;is  ;iM 

unic:iti()ii. 

I,  iU'kiiowI- 

:ru(Ml  yum 
H'li  tiilly  ,\ 
t«Ml  Sl;i'ti'> 
rt'Ct  looses 
tlu'  \v;iy  111' 
iiitiiniitiii.: 
(>r  opinion. 

ih'\s  llotf  nl' 

■V  led   lin 
iii(iiii(-ati<l 


lU'.NCK. 


nh  -jc.  1 -:■•'. 

7lh   iilliiiin.  i>l 
■,\  copy  ini  I'.ii 

fhf  rii'>i(liiit 
wcfii   tin-  I«l' 

till'   lilixs.- 

IMI  of  tllr  ;'"i 
withmit  iiiiN 

Kiiriilly  pan 

•Vfll    ti>    K  III 

to  ilifir  Miii- 
i|i:il  Sr(U'iiii> 

,   (i>  llii-  'Al  1 

llilcll    Mul'^' 
till-  ill  IKIUI!- 

i>  tiuf  ili;>i  '" 
as  to  itii-«il'l'' 

an  «Mti/'ii'»  <<»'■ 
IMoiitU.  "^Ifii- 
ami  cilaiiilN 

lin-ii  .■laini-"t 

».l.-  (Inline  III' 
...1  th.  -'Mi-I 
•ill  i»»  V>\'  "'• 
n\,  ..t  »>ivl' 
i!)'-  ■  ■  ■ 

........  I-.:'. 

r.-t«-riMiri'  I"  ;| 

?,i    Siuliul  •    i! 
Mulilioii  »l  t'i' 


CORRESPOXDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARIHTUATIDN,      4:57 

proi^osal  l>i'in<i  that,  in  rasn  a  claim  was  set  n\>  liy  tin-  I'nifcd  States,  fonndtMl  on  tlio 
r.'C(i;,'nilion  ol'  tin-  Conffdcratc  States  as  liclli;^crcnts,  it  sliunld  lie  o|»('n  to  »!:;  ''liii^li 
(iiivcinnicnt  to  advance  (lainis  o\\  their  i»;ii't,  such  as  a  claim  fur  injniy  to  Ihitish  inici- 
,»t-i  l>y  tht^  asseition  ami  exeieise  of  lielii;;!  rent  ii;;iils  hy  the  I'nitcd  States  nitiii 
Jlniish  commerce, 

j.'iid  Chuendon  at  once  declined  toeiitert;iin  this  sny;;!;estion. 

In  Mr.  I'ish's  dispatch  of  the 'i.'tth  of  Scpti-mher,  l"'ii;i,  tiic  (iovcrnment  of  the  I'niti  d 
Suites  intimated  tli.-it  they  c(mMidered  there  mi;jht  lie  ^lonnds  for  some  i  laiiiis  ot'  a 
larger  and  more  piiiijic  natiiie,  though  they  purposely  alistaiiied  at  that  timi'  tixin 
iii:ikiii};  them;  hut  the  };i'ounds  indicati.>d  wert^  not  limited  to  the  acts  <d'  the  Aiahamii 
and  other  similai' vessels,  oi'  to  any  mere  consei|iiences  of  suidi  acts,  nor  wei'e  these 
]iiililic  claims  then  dcKcrihed  or  referred  to  in  any  manner  as  "Ahiliama  (/Maims.""  That 
1  vprcNsion,  the  "Alahama  claims,"'  which  lirst  occurs  in  a  letter  from  Mr,  .Seward  ti» 
Sir  1".  Hrnce,  of  the  PJth  of  January.  l-T)?,  had  always  been  used  in  the  ciurespondence 
lictw  ecu  the  I  wo  (iovernmenis  to  descrilie  the  claim.-  of  American  citizens  mi  account 
iif  their  own  direct  losses  hy  t  he  depredations  of  the  Alal);ima  and  other  similar  vessels, 
.111(1  had  never  been  employed  t<»  des'.rihe,  or  been  treated  as  comprtdiendiii;.;,  an,\  piilt- 
lir  (»r  national  claims  whatever  of  tin-  (Jovernment  of  the  I'nitcd  ."States. 

Iliiwn,  therefore,  to  the  time  when  Her  Majesty's  (iniernmeut  proposed  the  ;ippnint- 
!i;.'iil  of  a  .Joint  lli;.;h  ("ommissitui  to  settle  the  l-'islu-rs  C,' nest  ion  and  all  other  i|iie>t  ions 
.iiiictinjj;  the  rel.'itions  of  the  I'nited  ."Siates  toward  llcr  Majesty's  pos.scssions  in  Noitli 
Aiin'rica,  no  actual  <daim  a^.ainst  Her  .Majesty's  (lovernmenf  had  heen  t'ormul.itid  "r 
:;'iiilic<l  on  the  part  of  the  ilnited  .Slates,  except  for  the  capture  or  destruction  ot 
miperty  of  indiv  itlual  eltixeiLs  of  the  I'nited  .Stat«-s  liy  the  .ilahanm  ami  other  simil.ir 

M'SSI'Is. 

Wlieii  Ifer  ^(aJesly'8  (Jovernment  consented,  at  tlm  reciuest  of  tho  (Jovi'iiimeiit  >>\' 
■!ir  Tnited  St.'ites,  that  the  ".\lahama  claims"  slwuild  Im-  ilea  It  with  hy  the  lli;;li  (  om- 
;.l;^-^i(Ml,  it  was  in  the  full  conlideiic(>  th.at  the  plir:iM' "Alaltania  claims"  \\  a.>  ii-id  l>y 
•III- I'uifi'd  ,Sf;iics  <;overnmeii(  in  the  same  sense  .-is  it  li;id  iieen  used  thronnliuut  tlie 
jiii-vions  corres)Mmdence  and  in  the  «-onventi<mssi^ned  hy  J.iord  Stanley  and  Lord  Clar- 
ciiiiiin. 

N\iti<Hi!il  claims  of  an  indirect  character,  such  as  those  ret'crred  to  in  Mr.  I-'isli"s  dis- 
Mlili,  could  not  he  cominehended  under  the  tcini  "  claims  j;eneric:illy  known  as  tin- 
.Maliama  claims."'  The  possibility  of  admitting;  as  a  snlijcct  of  m-j^oiiation  ,-in\  claim 
t'"!'  indirect  n.-itional  losses  has  never  been  eiitertaim-d  in  this  i-ountry  ;  and  it  was 
ilii'refoi'e  without  the  sli^^htest  doiilit  as  to  such  claims  beinu'  inadmissible  that  tii.; 
llritish  ili;-!!  ( Nunmissioners  were  appointed  and  prociedcd  to  \Vashint;ton. 

.\t  a  meetin<j;  of  the  Itritish  and  riiilcd  .States  Hi<;h  ( 'oiiimissioners  on  the  >||i  of 
Miii-h,  the  latter,  after  a  ^{eueial  statement  of  the  i-iaims  of  the  I'liited  State  >,  prn- 
'I'lled  to  say  that,  in  the  hopes  of  an  amicable  settli-nniit.  no  estimate  was  inade  of 
I'lilnei-t  losses,  without  prejutlice,  howevei-,  to  the  iiy;lit  nl'  iudcuHiili<-;itiiiu  on  tln-ir 
Hriiunt,  in  the  event  of  iio  siK-h  settlement  bein<;made;  auil  tln-y  afterward  proposnl, 
>v  ilii'cction  of  the  President,  that  "  till-  .loint   Hi^li  Commission  should  airrce  upon  .i 

I  whicii  should  be  |iaid  by  (ire,-it   jtrilaiii  to  tlm  I'nited  States,  in  saliHfactiuii  of  all 

•111' claims  and  the  interest  ihen-on.'' 
Mr.  l-'isli  says  that  the  I'n-sidi-nt  i  arncstly  hniicd  that  the  deliberations  of  the  (Om- 
ission  Would  liavi?  resulted  in  an  acceptance  by  Her  M.iji-sty's  (iovcrniui-iit  nl'  this 
{'>ii|ioNitioM. 
Iler  Majesty's  (ioveniineut  cannot  umlcrstand  upon  what  this  hope  was  fouuili  d. 
riie  posit  imi  which  the  (iovernmeiit  of  this  country  have  maintained  thrim;:liiiiit  all 
'111-  iiejjotiationH  has  been   that    they  were  guilty  ot'  no  ne;;Iijfence  in   i-cspi-ci   dI' the 
">i:tpe  of  the  .Mahama  and  the  other  vi-ssi-ls,  ami  have  thi-ictore  im-nrred  no  lialulity 
I'li'Miiv  payment,  ;iiid  they  still  maintain  this  position. 

Till-  only  ;;ronnd  on  which  Her  .M.-tJesty's  (iovernmeiit  could  he  asked  to  pay  an \  sum 
"iiiilil  have  liceu  an  admLssion  on  their  )iart  that  there  had  been  such  ne;;lip-iu'e  as 
■  iiHlered  them  Justly  lialde  to  pay  a  sum  in  couipcnsation.  This  woiild  liii\e  hi  en  .-m 
'''-•iliite  surrender  of  the  position  which  hasahvass  hi m  held  by  this  country,  and  a 
iiil'essiou,  which  could  never  hav»^  been  expected  f  om  them,  that  they  had  bei-a 
-Hilly  of  nef{liji;ence. 

lier  Majesty's  Hi;;h  Cimimis.sionerH,  therefore,  could  milv  ded.-ire  at  om-e  that  a 
|'r<>|io.sal  oi'  an  "amicable  settlement  "  in  this  particnlitrt'orm  could  not  he  eutertained, 
mil  Her  MiiJesly'H  lli^h  CommiHsimiers,  tut  t\w  part  ot  this  country,  immediately  made 


;;ii| 

Ml 

iiiiiniter-propo.sal,  naimdy,  the  proposal  of  urhitratimi,  and  this  proposal,  altei  bi<iut{ 

tll«! 


Hd^KeNtioii  of  the  Ciiitcil  Stattw  High  Commission- 


'"ii.ertaiu  extent  nioditied  on  tl 
||^.,  was  iU'cepted  hy  them. 

rile  liiodilicHtion  HU^KestiMl  hy  i]u\  l'nit<>d  States  111^11  (^'oniiniHHionerN,  and  aicepti-d 
')  tl.iise  of  (ireat  liritiiin,  \\aN  a  coniH-rtsion  of  nosiij^ht  importance  on  the  pai  >  of  this 

"laitry,  nam^dy,  tinit  the   principles  which  Hhoiild  govern  the  Arbitrators  in  liu  eon- 
""iH-iition  of  till"  faut.H  should  he  lirst  ajjreeil  upon;  and  thiH  eomressioii  was  \i-ry  ina 
'(FiittUy  Kiiliuiicuil  \%liun,  iii  urdor  to  Mtreiigtliuii  tlio  friuiuUy  rulutiuua  butweeti  the  twu 


If 


^iSi 


438 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


i'diMitiics  Mini  iiiiik«  HnMsfjirtoiy  provision  for  tlii' fiitiiri«.  tln-y  fiirliipriiKn-cd  tlmt  tli.M 
]iriiifi|>l<-M  siioiiid  Im>  tjiost!  rontiiiiifij  in  flic  Iviili-s  in  the  A'ltli  Artiric  ol' lln' 'I'n  .'tt\  ; 
tor  tlif.v  thus  ii('i'c|>r<-il  till-  rt'troiiciivc  i-ll'i-ct  of  ruli-s  to  wiiicli,  ni'Vi-rfinli'ss.  tiny 
Iflt  lioimd  to  dfclarc  tliat  tlir.v  foiild  not  assent  as  a  stutcnn-nt  of  iirinciphis  of  iniii- 
iiationul  law  in  force  at  tlie  time  wlieii  the  ''Alal>ania  elaiins"  arose. 

The  frieiiilly  spirit  of  Her  Majesty's  (ioverunient  was  further  shown  Ity  their  anilinr- 
i/in;;  Her  Majesty's  Hi<;h  Comniissioners  to^xpiess  the  rejirei  felt  hy  Iter  Majestv'stinv . 
einnient  fir  thi;  es  t:pe,  under  whatever  circnnistanees,  of  the  Ahil>aina  ami  the  mln  i 
Vessels  from  liritish  ports,  ami  for  llu-  (lei>reilatioiis  eonimilted  hy  those  vessels,  jiinl  li\ 
their  a^^reein;;  that  this  expression  of  reyret  sliouhl  lie  I'ormally  reeorded  in  the  'l'ii;ii\. 

\or  did  Her  Majesty's  (iovernmenr  idijeet  to  the  introdnetion  cd  tdaiins  l'<iriher\. 
pensi- <d'  the  |>nrsiiit  and  eaptnre  of  the  Alahama  and  oth<-r  vessels,  not withstiiiiihiix 
the  donitt  how  far  those  claims,  though  mentioned  dnrini;  tin;  conferences  as  diint 
claiins,  came  within  the  proper  scope  <d'  the  arhilration.  'i'hey  acipiiesced  in  tin'  jun- 
jiosal  to  exclude  from  the  nej^otiat ions  their  claims  on  liehalf  of  Canada  auainsT  iln 
l'niie<l  States  t"or  injniies  sutl'ered  fiom  Feidan  raids — an  ai'ipiit  sccui'e  whicli  w:is  dni 
]>arll>  to  a  desire  on  their  pait  to  act  in  a  spirit  of  conciliation,  and  ]>artly  to  the  l^ri. 
stated  hy  Her  Majestv's  Hi<;;li  Connnissioners.  that  a  portion  of  tlies(>  claims  was  nt  ;i 
constructive  and  iid'erential  character. 

The  iin|iiirtance  of  these  concessions  must  not  he  nmlerrated.  Nor  can  it  ha\e  In  1 1 
expected  liy  the  (Jovei'iiment  of  the  Inited  States  that  concessions  of  t  his  inipcirl.iin . 
would  have  heen  maile  hy  this  country  if  the  I'nited  States  were  still  to  he  at  lilniiv 
to  in>ist  upon  all  the  extreme  demands  wliicli  they  ha<l  at  any  tiin<i  su;:ues|i(l  m 
1*roui.dit  forward. 

Her  .Maje>ty's  (iovernnient  consiilered  tliemselves  Justilied  in  trcalin;;  the  wnivci  nj 
indirect  claims,  in  tiie  event  of  an  andeahle  settlement,  pioltercd  l»y  the  lii;ili  ('(iiniiii« 
siouers  of  the  t  'nited  .States,  as  one  w  liicli  a]iplied  to  any  foiin  of  amicahh'  selilciiiriii 
and  iherelore  com|M'ised.  in  like  nninner.  the  j'orm  of  amicalde  scttleivent  pi'opii>cil  li\ 
the  liiilisii  lliyh  Commissioneis.  accepted  on  the  part  of  the  I'nited  Slates,  and  rcdi;;- 
ni/.eil  in  the  pieandde  of  the  Treaty. 

Sm'li  a  waiver  was.  in  fact,  a  necessary  condition  of  the  success  (d'  the  iie;,'citialioi, 

It  was  ill  the  lull  hcljef  that  this  waiver  had  \h  >n  made  that  the  Itritish  (iuveriiiii.;, 
ratified  the  'I'leaty. 

Her  .Majesiy's  (•overnmeiit  are  anxiuus  that  the  considerations  wliicli  iiuide  ilir;i. 
hold  this  lieliel'  should  he  more  fully  ex|dained  to  the  (■overnmeiit  of  the  rnited  Sl;iti  - 
than  call  he  done  in  the  form  of  a  letter,  and  I  have  accorilin<>ly  emhodied  tlicni  in  ., 
MeiiKiiaiidiim.  which  I  have  ihe  hoiioi  to  inclose,  iind  which  1  hc>;  may  he  read  ^^:<!. 
and  I'onsideied  as  part  of  my  present  ciunmunicatiini. 

llei  .Mjijesiy's  (iovi'rnment  ilo  not  deiiv  that  it  is  as  competent  for  the  (ioveiiniii m 
ot'tlie  I'niti'd  St.il"  s  -is  it  i.s  for  them  el\ es  to  assert  that    their  own   interpretation  I'l 


tlie 'l'real\'  is  tluM'iurcct  one.     I^iit  what  Her  Majesty's  tioverumcnt  niaiiit: 


is.  tlmt 


the  natural  and  ;;i'ammatic.il  constriu  lion  of  tin-  ian;rna;re  used  in  the  Treaty  iiihI 
I'rotoeiils  is  in  acconlaiice  \>  ith  the  views  which  they  entertain,  ami  sustains  thru 
assertion  thai  the  leiiusof  reference  to  the  Arhit  raiius  are  limited  todiriit  claiiii~. 
inasmuch  as  direct  (daims  only  have  lhi'ou;>hout  the  cMrespoiidence  lieeii  i'eco<;iii/i'il 
and  i<'pealedl\  delim  d  iiiiiiei'  the  name  i>i  the  "Alaham.'i  claims." 

'I'here  are  some  pas>-:i;j;es  in  Mr.  fish's  dispatch  in  wliiih  he  defends  the  intriHliHlim. 
into  I  he  Aiiiei  lean  (  ase  of  I  he  I'laims  tor  indirect  Iosmcs  uiid  iiijiirics,  which  1  caiiiiin 
allow  to  jiass  w  itliout  more  s|iecial  remark. 

It  is  .^lali'd  thai  they  are  put  I'oiward  in  the  Case,  not  as  claims  for  whic 
demand  is  made,  hut  as  losses  and  iiijiiiies  coiisei|iient  upon  the  acts  ctunplaiii 
and  nece>sarily  to  he  taken  into  ei|uiialde  consider.-ition  in  a  final  .seltlcnicMt  ot  ;ii 
ditfeiences  hetwei'ii  the  two  conntries.  and  .-is  not  relim|uished  in  the  Treaty,  hut  con 
eied  Ity  on<'  id"  ifs  two  alternatives. 

Her  Majesty's  (losernmcnt  do  not  iiereeivo  what  "  idternative"  in  the 'i"real\  1:11 


I  a  s)M'c 


.1  cI. 


cove 


til. 


se  claims. 


If.  indeed,  hy  this  lan-.'iiace  NJr.  I-'ish  is  to  he  nndcrstooii  as  rcterriii;r  to  Ih''  two  ilii- 


ilv  I. 


fen'iil  modes  pro\  ided  !•>  .V I  tildes  \  li  and  .\  of  I  lie  'J'leal.v .  for  arriv  iiijj  at  t  he  aiii' 
ot'  the  p.iyment  to  he  niaiie  hy  (iit-ai    Iliiiain  in  the  event  id'  any  lialiility  hciiiji  4 
lisiii  d,  tlie  airswei' seems  ohvioiis,  vi/.,  that    these    alternatives  me   a|i]dieahli'   01 
the  '<ettleiiieiil  of  the  amount  of  daniii>;i!s.  and  not  to  tin    measure  ot'  lialniiiy. 
A}:aiu.  Mr.  I''ish  states  that   the  Treaty  was  not   an  amicaldc  >etth  nieiil,  hut  oiilv  : 

u-    mode  of  reaeiiin;:  a  settlement.  :i' 


ti;;rei  met 


it     hel  ween     the  ( 


iovernmcnts  as 


to  th 


that  no  proitt  I  of  withlnddim;  an  estimate  oi'  ndireet  loHNesciiu  he  claino'il  ;is  a  w:i 
until  the  loult  of  the  arhilration  is  arrived  at;  luit  he  ovfilooks  the  tad  1h.1i  I'l' 
Tri'atv  iscalled  anamicahle  settlcineni .  not  nn-rely  in  relation  toihe  '•Ali«hiiniM  «laiiii>. 
)uit  as  an  entirety ;  and  e\  en  in  ndatitMi  to  thi^  "Alahama  idaiiiis''  alone,  it  must  clcnilv 
Ite  taken  that  the  amicaldc  HettlenMiu  wliicli  it  profcss«d  to  provide  was  an  i  veil  it 
from  the  iininieiit  when  the  trenty  containiiij;  the  anieement  to  j;o  to  arhitration  ii|mi. 
till!  claims  was  nigiied  and  ratiliod.     If,  utcordiuK  tu  Mr.  Fiuh's  viuw,  an  amicahir  ><  1 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.      4r»9 


Pf-ffi 


tlir  'l'rcal,\  '^i: 


tliiiuMit  iiftiT  a  iclVri'iiPi'  to  arhitration  can  only  1>ij  nrrivcd  at  l>y  ati  adjiulication  of 
tilt'  claims,  it  is  tilivions  lluit  im  waiviT  <i('  any  siicii  rlaiiiis  cdiiM,  hihIit  sinli  ririiiiii- 
stiiiu'cs,  oviT  hi'  iiiadi'.  tor  Itft'on'  tlic  tinic  for  waiver  ^nll  tills  suiiposiiinii)  Iia«l  ariivfil 
till-  claims  Would  already  have  Itch  dcciilcil  upon. 

'I'liat  lli'r  .Majvvty's  (iovcriimciit  never  intt^iidcd  to  refer  theso  claims  to  arliitiation, 
iiiul  tliat  inratilvin;;  tlie  Ticaty  tliey  never  conteniidated  their  lieinj;  ri-vived  inllie 
urunnient  liefore  the  Arliitrators,  n.iist  have  lieen  olivioiis  to  yoii  from  the  laii;iiiaiie 
Msed  in  the  dehati' in  the  Monse  of  Lords  on  the  I'Jth  of  .Fnne,  on  the  motion  for  an 
aililress  to  the  (^neen.  prayinj;  Her  Majesty  to  ret'nse  to  ratify  the  Treatv. 

(»n  that  i.ccasion  I  distinctly  stated  this  to  he  the  nn<lerstandinj;  of  ller  Majesty's 
(iiivernment,  and  niioted  the  very  Protocol  of  the  Ith  of  May,  to  which  I  have  relerr«Ml 
iiliove,  as  a  proof  that  these  indiiect  claims  had  '•entirely  disappeared."  When  Lord 
Ciiirns,  to  whose  speech  allusion  has  liccn  made  in  the  riiiteil  States  Case,  snlisei|nently 
said  that  e\travai;ant  claims  nii;;lit  he  put  in  and  take  tlieir  chance,  he  was  met  \\it!i 
expressions  of  di»ent.  .Moreover,  Loid  Iterhy,  whileci'iticisin^  the  ne;;(itiation  anil  the 
innis  of  tlu'  'I'reaty  in  other  respects,  particulari/.ed  the  withdrawal  ol"  indiiect  claims, 
"'i"he  only  concession,"  he  said,  "of  winch  I  can  see  any  trace  ni»on  the  .Vmerican  side 
is  the  withdrawal  of  that  utterly  preposterous  demand  that  we  sliould  he  held  n-spon- 
-.jlile  for  the  premature  reco;;nition  of  the  South  as  a  lh'lli;^en'nt  powei-,  in  company 
with  that  ei|ually  wild  imagination,  which,  I  helieve,  never  extended  heyond  the  minds 
iif  two  or  three  s|ieakeis  in  ( 'on;;ress,  of  ma  kin  j;'  us  liahle  for  all  the  eiin>triieti\  e  dam- 
a;.'cs  to  trade  and  navi^.ition  which  may  he  proved  or  supposed  to  have  aiiseii  Irom 
iiiir  attitude  durin;;  the  \\  ar."' 

1  oliserved  that  >  on  Were  present  in  the  House  of  Ijirds  (in  that  occasion,  and  vou 
informed  nie.  on  the  liith  of  Decemher,  that  you  were  present  during  the  speeches  i.f 
I.urd  I'lissell  and  myselt'.  and  that  \oii  communicated  the  next  day  the  full  newspaper 
ivport  of  the  dehate  to  your  (io\ernnient. 

Sir  S.  Noi'thcote,  in  the  Mouse  of  ('omnions,  repeated,  in  other  wojds.  the  siihstance 
cil'  my  remarks  on  the  limitat  ion  ol' t  he  terms  ol"  reference ;  and  as  hi>  sp.-i  ih  is  pnuli'd 
ill  the  papers  on  I'oreijjn  Relations,  recent  ly  laid  liefore  ('oiij;ress.  it  mnsi  also  havM 
lici'u  reported  to  your  (iovemmeiit.  Itiit  neither  on  the  occasion  of  my  s|ieeeh.  nor  of 
his,  mir  when  the  latitic.itioiis  ot'  the  Treaty  were  exchaiij;!'!!  on  the  ITtli  of  .June,  did 
vim  c.ill  ni\  attention  to  the  fad  that  a  dilferent  intiipretation  was  placed  on  the 
frc'ity  and  J'rotocol  hy  Her  .Majesty's  Covernment  and  the  (iovernineur  of  the  I'nited 
''tales;  nor,  so  far  as  Her  .Majesty's  (ioveinmeiit  are  aw  are,  was  their  inti  rpieiaiioii, 
liiiis  piihlicly  expressed,  cliallcn;;cd  cither  hy  the  Htatesnicn  or  the  puhlic  piivs  of  the 

l.llited  .StatcH. 

Her  .Majesty's  iMiverniiii'nt  must  therefore  confess  their  iimhility  to  umli-rstand  how 
the  intimation  i  ontaiiied  in  my  note  of  the  :<d  «if  Eehruary  last  cun  have  liccn  recei\ed 
liy  the  I'residenI  with  ^:irprise. 

.Mr.  J'ish  ur;;;es  that  the  claims  foi'  national  iudirei'l  losses  which  have  heeii  |Mit  for- 
ward on  hehiilf  of  his  tiovernmeiit  involve  ijiieslions  of  puhlic  law  which  the  interesi 
i>f  liotli  (iovernnn-nts  rei|uires  should  he  delinilely  settled 

ller  .Majesty's  (ioverument  ;iy;ree  with  Mr.  I'isli  that  it  is  lor  the  interesi  of  hotli 
c'oini  tries  that  the  rights  and  duties  of  ncntrals  upon  some  of  tin-  points  hitherin  thon^iit 
ii|ic'll  to  serious  ruiitroversy  should  lie  delinilely  set  t  li'd,  and  liad  hopi-i!  that  spli  a 
I'tlleliiellt  had  heen  secured  hy  the  Rules  to  which  llie\  lia\e  ;;iven  their  assent  :  hut 
they  eaiiuot  see  that  it  would  he  advantageous  to  eil  her  couutr>  to  render  the  ohli^a- 
lioiis  (if  neutrality  so  onerous  as  they  would  hecoiiie  if  claims  of  this  iiaiure  were  to  he 
treated  as  propel  siilijects  ot°  internalioiial  arhitration. 

Whatever  construction  may  he  placed   iipmi  the   Isi   .\rlicle  of  the  Treaty,  it   is  im- 

IHKsihle  to  sever  the  terms  of  referi'Mce  tlirieili    coiilailled   from    till-  IJilles    ill  til''  N'ltll 

.\rticle:  and  the  meastire  of  liahility  under  the  .\i'hitraiion,  theielore.  will  h.-  the 
iiieasiiie  of  li.'ihility  incurred  hy  any  neutral  Stale  which,  after  accediiii^  to  th-s.-  R  lies, 
may,  "  hy  any  act  or  oiiiissiou."  fiil  to  fullill  any  of  the  duties  set  forth  in  tin  iii. 

The  I'liited  States  and  (ireat  Itrilaiii  have  hound  theiust'lves  l»y  thi'  Treats  to  oh- 
serve  these  Rules  as  between  themsilves  in  fiilure. 

'I'liey  have,  moreover  hound  tliemsidvesi  to  hiiiij^  these  Rules  to  the  knowled;;  •  of 
itller  maritime  I'uWers,  and  to  iuvile  them  to  accede  to  them.  Could  it  have  heeli 
i'X|M'cted  that  thox.-  I'owers  would  accept  a  {iropusal  wiiicli  iiii;;ht  eiii.iil  iipnii  ,i  iieiur.il 
tiii'li  an  iiulimited  liability,  and,  in  some  instances,  mi^ht  involve  tie*  ruin  ol  i  whole 
I'liiiiif  ry  .' 

Her  .Miijjesty's  (Jovernnieiit  cannot  for  thiuiiselv«.i  uccepL  hucIi  a  liahility,  noi  recom- 
iiieiid  the  acceptance  of  it  to  other  nations. 

.Vie  the  (ioveriiniellt  and  |icople  of  the  I'liilcd  States  themselves  [iri  pared  to  lliider- 
taki-  the  ohlij^ation  of  payin;;  to  an  ay;;;rievvd  helli),;erent  the  expenses  of  the  pfolmma- 
tiiiii  of  the  war  and  ither  indirect  daiua^i'S,  if,  when  the  I'nited  .States  are  neutral,  they 
I'Hii  lie  shown  to  h'.iv  i>  periuitted  the  iiifi  iuu;eiueut  of  any  one,  or  part  of  any  one,  of  tlm 
llnec  |{uleH  throujjh  i;  want  of  due  dilif^ence  on  the  part  of  tiieir  exe>iiti\e  ntHcer.s  ? 

To  attiich  such  truiut'iitluus  ('iinsei|uciiccs  to  iin  iiiiintciitional  viulatiuii  of  mutr.ility 


440 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


i 


11 


•i-v*' 


i 


— it  niijilit  1><^  I'y  a  wiiijili^  net  of  iic^'li^jtMift) — would  l»o  to  Htrike  ii  liciivy  l»lo\v  at  tin 
intciots  of|ifacf;  lor  war  has  siuricly  any  coiisccjucuct's  iiioro  I'ormidalihj  to  a  Ixlii^'- 
tri'iit  tlian  tliosr  wliicli  iMi(;lit  tlins  In;  iiutiuml  liy  a  lu-ntral ;  and,  vvliiU-  war  ollcrs^i 
cliaiii'c  (•(  ;;ain,  niMitrality  woidd,  if  siudi  claims  as  tlifso  wiTo  ouue  adinittt;d,  pre.MJiit 
witliiint  any  sncli  coinponNation  the  risk  of  intnlcrabl*)  loss. 

With  rcsiicct  to  tlu!  disdainuir  inailo  l>y  Mr.  I'isli  cd"  any  expectation  or  wish,  on  tin. 
part  id"  tlif  United  Statt!s  (iovcrnnitMit,  to  obtain  any  "nnr<)a.sonal)lo  pi-cnniiny 
('oni]unsation  "  on  account  of  these  indirect  (laini-^,  I  think  it  Nudi(dent  hero  to  oIiscim 
that,  on  the  ipu'stion  of  amount,  tin;  Hritish  people  and  (•overninent  iiavo  necessarily 
lieen  oldjired  to  look  to  till)  nature,  and  ^{rounds  of  the  claims  an  they  ar«^  utated  in  tin 
(,'iise  of  the  United  States,  and  have,  id'  course,  hien  unalde  to  form  a, judgment  iVniii 
any  other  */«/«  of  the  expectatioim  of  those  hy  whom  the  claims  are  advanced.  If  iIicm' 
claims  could  be  considered  as  well  grounded  in  principle,  it  appears  to  Her  Maji>ty> 
(iovernment  to  he  ca|)ahle  of  demonstration  that  the  magnitude  of  the  damages  wliich 
might  lie  the  result  of  their  adnussion  is  enorninus.  Tho  grounds  of  thcso  views  aie 
Riore  fully  stated  in  the  Third  I'art  of  the  iiudiix -d  Memoramlum. 

Mr.  I'ish  has  appeah'd  to  the  proceedings  at  tin  W:ishington  Claims  Connnissiini  ju 
conneitioii  with  the  Confederate  cotton  claims.  Her  Majesty's  ({overninent  nnist.  how- 
evei.  olisei'vi' that  there  i.s  no  amilogy  hetween  the  two  eases,  as,  hy  the  Treaty,  the 
W.ishington  Commission  has  power  "  to  decide  in  inch  case  whether  any  idaim  has  or 
lias  not  heeii  duly  made,  )ireterrcd,  and  laid  liefoie  them,  either  wholly,  or  to  any  and 
what  extent,  according  to  the  true  intent  and  mi  .uiing  of  tho  Treaty;"  no  similai 
words  heing  used  as  to  the  powers  of  the  (ieiieva  Trihiinal. 

It  is  the  liinction  of  thi^  Washington  Commissiuii  to  decide  upon  a  variety  id' gem  ral 
claims,  not  of  one  kind,  nor  limited  or  delined  Ind'ortdiaiid,  and  Her  Majesty's  .Vgint 
was  instructed  that  his  <luty  would  ^>W/;ia  ./Vjcir  lie  to  present  such  claiiu.s  as  private 
individuals  might  tender  for  that  purpose  for  aeie]dance  or  ri'jection  hy  the  (.'oimiiis- 
sioii,  Ilcr  .Majesty's  (ilovt.'rnment  not  intending  to  make  themselves  responsihle  i-iilin 
for  the  merits  of  the  particulii.r  claims  or  for  the  arguments  hy  which  they  minlit  lie 
supjiorted.  The  jurisdiction  jf  the  Cieiicva  Trihiinal  was  limited  to  one  particular 
class  and  description  of  (daims. 

'I'hc  facts  are  as  follows: 

On  the  II ill  111"  Noveiiiher,  in  ])ursiianco  of  thi'  gener.al  instructions  which  had  hern 
given  to  Her  .Majesty's  Agi'iit,  a  claim  upon  a  Imiid  issued  hy  the  so-called  (^'mifeilciatu 
States  for  a  sum  forming  jiart  of  a  loan  called  the  •'  Cotton  Loan,"'  coiitrai  ted  li>  those 
States,  and  for  the  jiayment  id'  which  certain  cotton  seized  by  the  I'nited  States  \\as 
■•illeged  to  have  been  hy]»otheeated  by  the  Conlediisite  (iovernment,  was  tiled  at  Wash- 
iiigton  :  and  on  the  'itst  I  learned  from  you  that  the  United  .States (government  oIijccIkI 
to  claims  of  this  kind  being  even  presented. 

Some  delay  took  place  in  consei|ueiiee  of  unavoiihible  cau.Hos,  with  some  of  wliiili 
you  are  widl  acunainted.  And  there  were  others,  such  as  the  necessity  not  only  ol 
communicating  with  my  colleagues,  but  with  Sir  Kdward  Thornton,  and  of  coiisiilcriiii; 
how  far,  under  the  same  general  description.  tlii-re  might  be  included  claims  substan- 
tially ilitVen'Ut.  The  dispatches  from  Her  Majesty's  .Vgent  giving  the  didails  of  the 
nature  of  the  (daims,  and  (d"  the  demurrer  made  to  it  by  the  United  States  Agent,  did 
not  re.ich  me  until  the  ()th  of  December.  I  had.  in  the  mean  time,  ascertained  troin 
.Sir  Hilvvard  Thornton  that  the  expression  '•acts  committed"  hud  \u'vn  used  by  mutual 
agreement  in  the  iiegotiatioiiM  whiidipnu'cded  th.  iippointment  of  the  High  Commission 
with  a  view  to  exclude  claims  of  this  (dass  from  the  consideration  of  the  High  Coinmis- 
Nioners;  those  words  being  also  used  in  the\Hth  .\rtiele  of  the  Treaty  with  regard  to  pri- 
vate (daims.  The  i|uesiion  was  brought  bidore  the  Cabinet  at  its  next  uKjetingon  (lie 
1  Ith.  and  waslinally  deiddedon  the  I  Ith,  as  recorded  in  a  minute  by  Mr.  (Jladstoni!.  Tlii> 
decision  was  that  the  CouftMlerate  cotton  claims  should  not  bo  pr(!H(.'iitfld  unless  in  the 
case  of  bonds  exchanged  for  (!otton,  whiidi  had  thereby  Ix-como  the  actual  property  d 
the  (daimant.  and  direction.s  were  given  for  a  dispatch  to  be  sen'.,  to  this  clfei^t,  and  on 
the  Hith  I  inl"ormed  ymi  that  you  might  write  to  Mr.  Fish  that  Her  .Majesty's  .\geiit 
would  be  instructed  not  to  present  any  claims  that  did  not  coniu  within  the  provisions 
of  the  Treaty. 

Although  it  appoat'H  that  the  understanding  need  not  iieocsaarily  have  extijuded  be- 
yond the  rejtiction  by  the  (JonuuissioncrH  of  the  claims,  under  the  XlVth  Article,  by 
wlii(di  tho  Coinnii8.>)ioner8  have  power  to  decide  whether  any  claim  ih  preferred  within 
the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  tho  Treaty,  (as  was  «lone  with  viirioius  claims  under  a 
Hiinihir  Artiido  in  the  Claims  Convention  of  IS'tA,)  Her  Majesty's  Government  acceded 
to  the  constriictioa  which  the  United  States  Govorriueut  bad  put  upon  that  umhtr- 
standing. 

Mr.  Fish  will  (diservo  tho  feeling  by  whi(di  Her  Majesty's  Govoriuuent  were  guided 
in  coining  to  their  decision  on  the  14th.  They  (h'sired  to  put  the  niOvSt  favorable  coii- 
Htriictioii  upon  any  uiulerstauding  which  tho  United  States  Govermuont  might  have 
Bitpposed  to  exist. 

luformutiuu  reached  me  the  next  movuing  by  tolograpb  of  the  adjudicutiuu,  which 


"»T^ 


W^ 


COIIRESPONDENCK    RESrECTING    GENEVA    AIIBITRATIOX.      441 


Hit  MaJosty'H  G(iv<'rninpiit  lia»l  n<»t  oxiti'dcd  to  tako  |>lac(<,  u|>oii  tln!  nu'iits  of  tlio 
claiiii  li.v  tin'  ('oiiiinisHioiicrs.  Tins  rci|iiii'<Ml  a  ifconsidiTation  of  tln'  instinctiniis,  aiiil 
IrisU  iiistiMctions  wcro  snit.  by  tli<<  mail  of  tin*  2'M,  ami  also  l>y  t<'li';;ra|ili,  to  Sir  Ed- 
ward 'riioriitoii  to  !)r:,(ii){(^  witliMr.  Fish  that  tlio  prrMciitatioii  of  claims  wliicii  a|i|M>ariMl 
tip  l>f  maiiifi'stly  w.tl^out  the  trriiis  of  tlm  Treaty  should  ho  withheld,  and  that  whoii 
Ijir  Majesty's  Aj^eiit  was  of  (-;ii'iioii  that  a  claim  hfloiijrcd  to  a  clasn  that  oii;;iii  not  to 
hi- |in-s<-Mt*-d,  it  would  he  di'siralilc  that  an  a<;rtMMncnt  to  that  clf.Mtt  should  lie  mado 
and  si;;iM'd  hy  Sir  IMward  Thornton  and  Mr.  Fish.  Thcso  instrnetions  wen-  i-oniinu- 
niiMtcd  to  Mr.  Fish. 

Ilt-r  Majesty's  .Af^ent  has  since  act«Ml  in  acconlance  with  tlio  decision  of  the  Cahinot 
of  the  I  Ith  of  Decuimlier.  New  claims  of  the  like  character  have  been  tendei-d  to  him 
liy  |iiirlies  who  were  unwilling;  to  acifuiesce  in  the  decision  of  the  Commissioners  as 
:i|i|di(alde  to  their  own  cases,  hut  which  claims,  under  instructions  from  tier  Majesty's 
(JitverMment,  h.ive  not  heen  presented. 

I  havit  now  placed  in  your  hands,  for  examination  hy  the  Govennnent  of  the  United 
States,  a  statement  (d'tlu?  reasons  which,  in  the  opinion  of  ller  Majesty's  (Joviiinuent, 
siilliciently  show  that  claims  for  indirect  losses  are  not  within  the  nn-aninuol'  t Ik- Treaty; 
that  timy  were  lu'ver  intendctl  to  lie  included  hy  llcr  Majesty's  (iovernmenl  :  th.it  this 
was  piiidicly  declareil  liefint*  the  ratilication,  wln-ii  the  crnu",  if  any,  miy:lit  have  lieeii 
cerrccted  ;  that  such  claims  nre  wholly  lieyond  the  reasonahle  scope  ot  any  Treaty  i>f 
Ailiitiation  what(u-er;  and  that  to  suhmit  them  for  decision  liy  thcTrilninal  would  liu 
:i  measure  fran>;lit  with  pernicious  consci(Uonces  to  the  iiitcrusts  uf  all  nations  ami  to 
llic  I'ntiire  peace  of  the  world. 

I  appiecijite  the  desire  suhstantially,  if  imlirectly,  expressed  by  the  (iovernmeiit  of 
llic  Fnited  States,  to  be  advised  of  the  rejisons  which  have  pr<im|ited  the  declaration 
iiMilc  by  me  on  behalf  of  ller  .Majesty's  (io  vein  men  t  on  the  ;Sd  of  February,  no  h'ss  than 
ihc  I'riendly  and  courleous  laiiijua^e  which  has  been  employi'd  by  the  I'nited  States 
Si'i  iciary  of  State.  'I'hc  present  letter  is  intended  by  Her  .Majesty's  (jovcrnnient,  not 
:is  theciimmenceinent  of  a  diplomatic  controversy,  but  as  an  act  of  compliance  with  that 
must  reasonable  desire.  They  are  sure  that  tin;  I'i'esident  will  be  no  less  anxious  than 
tJK'v  are  that  the  conduct  of  both  (ioverunuMits  should  contorui  to  the  true  meaniii}{ 
and  intent  of  the  instrument  they  ha\'e  jointly  fniined  and  si^^mtd,  whcrhiM'  that,  mean- 
ing; be  drawn  from  theautluiritative  documents  tlnunscdvesor  from  col!  iteral  coiisidera- 
tiiiiis,  or  from  both  sources  combined. 

ICntcrtaimii}''  themselves  no  douiit  of  the  sntliciem-y  of  the  i>rounds  on  which  their 
jml^iuent  proceeds,  they  think  it  the  course  at  once  most  respectful  and  most  friendly 
to  tile  (iovernmeiit  of  the  I'nited  States  to  submit  those  ;rrounds  to  their  impartial 
:i|ipi'cciation.  Her  .Majesty's  Governm<-nt  (eel  contidcnt  that  they  have  laid  bi-t'on;  tll(^ 
I'i'i'siilcnt  ample  )iroof  that  tint  conclusion  which  was  ,'innounced  by  me  on  tin;  lid  of 
IVliinary,  and  to  which  J  need  hartlly  say  that  they  adluao,  cannot  be  sliak<n. 
I  have,  &e., 

GRANVILLE. 


^K-i 


llnclimino  i!  in  Nii.  I:).] 

M  E  M  O  R  A  N  D  U  .^[ . 

P.viiT      1. — On  tlie  wjiivi-r  ril'  rlniiiis  lor  iiiilircct  luasoH  coiitiiiui'il  hi  tlio  liCth  Protoi'iil. 

I'Aicr    II.— On  llif  (;iinMti'ii<;tiiin  ot  tin-  'I'rciity. 

I'Aur  111. — Uu  tUu  aiiioiint  uf  tliu  ulaiius  t'ur  I'uilircct  losHefi. 

PART  I. 


On  the  icaiviT  of  claimn  for  iiuiired  lonais  contained  in  the  'Mth  J'lOtocol. 

The  first  Protocol  of  tho  Conferences  of  tlio  HIrIi  Comiiiission  benins  with  a  recital 
tif  the  powers  of  tho  Kritish  ComniissionerH,  stating  Her  .Mi^jesty's  purpose  in  thiiir 
:ipl>(»intniont  to  bo  to  "discuss  in  u  friendly  sjiirit  with  Coiiiinissioners  to  l)e  appointed 
liy  tli(^  (jrovuruniont  of  the  United  States  the  various  <]iiostions  on  which  ditt'ereinies 
liiul  arisen  between  Great  Dritain  anil  that  country,"  and  to  "  treat  for  an  agreement  aa 
III  the  mode  of  their  amicable  settlement." 

The  Protocol  of  tho  4th  of  May  recounts  that  tho  American  Commissioners  stated, 
III!  the  8th  of  March,  "  that  tho  history  of  tho  '  Alabama,'  and  othor  crui-sers  which  had 
l«'uii  titted  out,  or  armed  or  equipped,  or  which  had  received  augmentation  of  force  in 
lir(;jit  Britain  or  in  her  Colonies,  and  of  the  operations  of  those  vessels,  showed  (t)  ex- 
teiiHivo  direct  loaaea  in  tho  capture  and  destruction  of  u  large  number  of  vessels  with 


442 


TREATY    OF    WASIIINGTOX. 


tlit'ir  rarjjoj'M  ami  in  tlir  lienvy  national  cxix'nditurfa  in  the  jinrsnit  of  the  « riii>it>i; 
nn<l  {'2)  hitlitirl  injnrn  in  tin-  traiisCi  r  ol';!  iaiy  I'ful  ol'  tlic  American  coinnnTciiil  ni.iiiM.' 
to  till-  ISiilisli  tiair,  in  tiie  tMiliancrd  pavnifnts  <r  insniancr,  in  tlu'  |irolon;{atiuii  nt'  tli" 
^var,  anil  in  tin-  aililition  of  a  larp-  sum  to  tin-  rost  of  tin-  war,  ami  tiif  sn|i|*i<w«iiiii  ,,t 
tlif  irlii'lliitn ;  ami  also  HJiowcd  (l{)fliaf  (Jri-al  Hritain.hy  reason  offaihire  in  \\i,-  piuii. 
01  (ihservame  of  iier  ilutii'H  as  a  m  iitial,  liail  liecome  Jnstly /((//)/^ /<»;•  ^Ar  «rN  o^^/,,,,, 
criiixvi-H  (iiifl  of  Ihi'ir  Itiiilvrx;    that  the  cltiimx  Cor  the  loss  ami  ileHtruefion  ot'  iniv^ti' 

iiro)iertv  wliieli  liail  thus  far  I n  itresenteil  anionnteil  to  ahont  si  I.oihi.immi.  wiilimn 

interest,  wiiieii  amount  was  lialile  to  he  ;;i(  atly  increased  hy  rliiiin>i  wliich  had  imt 
lieen  |ireseutcd  ;  that  tiie  cost  to  wiiicdi  the  (lovernment  had  heeu  ]tnt  ill  the  |>iii'siiit  o| 
cruisers  coiihl  easily  he  ascertained  l»y  certilieates  ot'  ({overnnieiit  account  iie^  ii;iii-fi^ : 
that,  in  the  ho|ie  of  an  iiniifithh'  Hclllniiiiit,  no  estimate  was  made  of  the  iiiiiirtr'  /.m«i», 
without  |ireju(lice,  however,  to  tlif  riijlit  to  iiKhmiiiJiivfion  on  Ihfir  accoinil  in  the  event 
of  nil  siiili  HiiiUmtnt  heiii!f  made. 

"The  American  (Commissioners  further  stated  that  they  liojied  that  the  15iiti-ih  ('niii- 
missioiiers  would  he  .ihle  to  )ilace  u)ioi)  record  an  expression  of  le^iiet  l>y  ll-r  Ma- 
jcHty's  ( loveriinieiit  for  the  depredations  committed  l»y  the  vessels  whose  acts  were 
now  under  discnssioii.  Tliey  utxo  pvojnwd  that  tlie  .loiiit  lli;;li  CoiiimissiDn  slimilil 
n<j;ree  upon  a  sum  which  should  he  paiil  hy  (!reat  ISritain  to  the  riiited  .States,  in  >ai- 
islactioii  of  ((//  Ihr  clinnin,  and  '/ic  iiilnrHl  llii'mm." 

The  IJiitish  Commissioners  altstaiiied  •'from  re|dyiii|;  in  detail  to  tlip  stsitenieni  of 
the  Aiiwrican  Commissioners,  in  the  hope  that  the  necessity  for  enteriiiy  iip'Mi  a 
leiifjtiiened  controsei.sy  mij^lit  he  oliviated  hy  the  adoption  of  HO  fair  a  inoilt-  <>/  s,?//,. 
iiuiil  as  that  which  they  were  instniiied  to  propose;  and  they  had  now  to  repe.it.  nu 
behalf  of  their  (Jovernmeiit,  the  oiler  of  aiiiitration. 

"  The  Aiiieiicaii  Commissioners  expressed  their  re;;iet  at  this  deiisiou  of  the  r>iiti»h 
Commissioners,  and  said  further  that  tliri/  roiilil  not  conxml  to  xntimit  thr  iimstiim  of  ih, 
lidhililii  of  flir  Majmlii's  tlovfninicnl  to  f(r/j///y(/io»,  (rti/cvx  the  principles  whiili  >liiiulil 
jjoverii  the  Ai  liitraliir  in  the  consideration  of  the  facts  could  he  tirst  aj^reed  upon." 

These  principles  were  .siihsei|iiently  discusNed  and  aj;reed  niioii,  and  incor|torafed  i:i 
the  Pratt  of  the  \Ith  Article  of  thcTreaty. 

On  the  (itii  of  May,  the  Commissioners  met  for  their  linal  confereiico,  and  I.nril  iji- 
(•ray  said  that  ••  it  had  heeii  most  jiratifyiiiji  to  the  liritish  Commissioners  to  h-  a-x'- 
ciated  with  c(dlea;;iies  wlio  Were  animated  with  the  same  sincere  desire  as  theiiisi-lve^ 
to^lii  iii^  alioiit  ((  xdlli mint  eipiiilly  honoralde  and  Just  to  liotli  countries." 

Mr.  I'isli  replied,  that  "from  the  first  (.'onference  the  Aineiicaii  ('oiiimissioncis  h.-id 
lieen  impicssed  hy  the  earnestness  of  desire  manifested  hy  the  IJritish  Coiiimissiiiiiii« 
to  reach  ((  Miltlfmint  wm'tliji  i>f  ihi  two  I'ownx.  »  *  »  Mis  c(illeau;ni's  and  he  eniil'l 
never  cease  to  appreciate  the  jieiierons  spirit  and  the  open  and  friendly  maiHui-  iu 
■which  the  Ih'itish  Coiiimissioiiers  had  met  and  discussed  the  several  <|nestioi|s  th.ii  liel 
led  to  the  1  iMicliisioii  of  ///('  Trciilii,  n'h'nh  il  irns  tiitpid  would  receive  the  apiU'oval  >•!'  t!ij 
people  of  lioili  countries,  and  iroiild  jiron  tin'  fonnilulion  of  a  <i>rdiol  and  fro  ndly  nnd>\- 
Hlaiidimi  Iteiwecn  them  for  ;ill  time  to  come." 

Two  days  afterward  the  Tiei.ty  was  siirned  with  the  fidlowin;;  I'reanihle  : 

'•||er  Urilaiinic  .Majesty  and  the  riiited  States  of  .Vnu'iiea,  l>eiiii>- desirous  to  jn-ovidc 
for  (("  uiniiiildi  xitllinont  of  all  causes  ot"  ditVereiice  he!  ween  the  two  coiiiitries.  liavr. 
for  that  purpose,  apjiointed  their  respective  I'lenipotent  i-nies.  '  *  '  Ami  tin- »:iiil 
I'leiiipoteiitiaries.  after  liaviii;;' e\cliaii;ied  tlieir  full  powers,  which  were  fouml  to  In' 
in  due  ami  proper  form,  Intrv  oijtnd  to  and  ninclndcd  the  followinji  Articles." 

In  the  view  of  Her  Majesty's  (Jovernnieiit  the  statement  made  hy  the  Aiiieric-;iu 
Commissioners  on  the  Htli  of  March  contained  a  waiver  of  the  claims  tor  iiidir<'t't  lii«'i'> 
contiiniciit  on  an  "amicable  Nettleincnt"  boinjj;  arrived  at;  and  thi.s  waiver  con-i!»te.l 
of  two  pails; 

l-'irst.  the  allirmative  statement  th:«t  "  in  the  hope  of  .in  amicable  settlement  noe>ti- 
mate  was  made  of  the  indirect  losses."  The  words  "  in  the  hope  of  an  amicable  sittlr- 
ineiit"  are  in  them.sidve.s  j;rainniatically  jj;eiieral,  and,  unless  ipialilied  by  a  sultieipunt 
limitation,  iii'-an,  in  thr  hope  of  any  smdi  settlement,  as  the  jtarties  shall  acknowhil^'' 
to  fall  under  the  ]»liraso  ''  amicable  settlement."  Now,  this  part  of  the  w.aiver.  h.iiiy;.! 
declaration  in  which  the  other  jiarty  had  an  interest,  and,  so  far,  of  the  nature  of  tli'- 
jiromise,  C'Mildonly  he  ho  limited  by  an  express  .•.m^iticiition  followin;;  it  iminediatclv, 
or  at  li-ast  iitibre  the  other  party  had  taken  any  sti^p  in  reliance  on  its  }jeneral  eliai- 
actiT.  Hut  no  such  specitication  was  made;  nor  does  any  speciliijation  at  all  as  to  tie' 
partieiilai  form  of  .settlement  appear  in  the  Protociol.  The  jthraso  cousetpiently  it  taiii'* 
the  fjeiieial  character  above  described  as  its  literal  and  y;raiiiiuiitical  iiieaiiiii<;. 

It  nii;ilit  be  said  that  the  conclmliii!>  words  of  the  phrase— "  no  estimate  was  iii.n'i' 
of  the  iiolirect  losses  " — had  a  special  re;rard  to  the  form  of  aiiiicable  .settlement  tlien  - 
after  inoposed  by  tho  American  Commissioners,  viz,  the  paymuiit  of  a  <;ross  sum.  T lii>. 
however,  can  only  b«  maintained  subject  to  the  iinaliticatioii  that,  if  the  estiiiiatr  nt 
indirect  losses  was  withheld  in  tho  hope  that  that  proposal  would  be  accepted,  ami  it 
the  view  of  the  Americau  Commissioners  was  that  the  auueptauue  of  that  proposal  aloiii- 


T-^^rrT 


W-' 


lis 

•11  If- 


CORKKSI'ONDKXCK    RESPECTING    GENEVA    AKBITItATION.      443 

would  ciMiNtihiti'  tli(!  "  amicalili'  KcHlfiiicnt,"  in  «'oiisi(ltMatii>n  of  wliicli  Iht-  istinmto 
of  imliicct  lossi's  was  witlilicltl.  tliin  tlir  iii-xt  sti-ji  lor  llifiii,  wlnii  the  |tin|io>iil  wasdc- 
cliind.  waM  to  |iiiMiit  that  fstimatc ;  or,  il  not,  tlim  In  sonu'  oIIkt  s|n(ilic  nianmr  ti» 
Ki-t'|i  alivi-  till-  claim.     Hut  tlicydid  niMiluT;  tlx.v did  not   iiitiniaic  or  ;;i\'i'   ncititi*  to 

tlir    liiilisli    ('oinnussioiuiH    that    thrii    iio|ii>  of  an  "  aniii'al)h'   M'tth-nii  lit  "  had   I ii 

liii>tialrd  or  di.-ajt|Hiiiit<d,  nor  did  thrv  .say  anylhiii;^  to  the  clVtct  of  inakiny;  this  liist 
jiortioii  of  the  waiver  ilf|itiiih'nt  on  thf  rrjcctcd  proiiosal.  And  thus  tlic  |dirasf  "an 
ainiiatdf  Hcttlciiitiit  "  is  htt  to  .stand  in  its  orif^inal  and  j;iaiiiniati(al  j;<in'iiiiily. 

'llii-  x'cond  part  of  tin-  waiver  is  as  toliows : 

"  Withoiu  jirejndiee,  liowexer.  to  tile  ri^ht  of  iiideiiiiiificat  ion  on  their  aceonnt  [i.e., 
on  a<<(iuiit  of  indire<'t  losses]    in   the  event  of  no   siieli   .settleiiieni    liriny;   made."      ''• 
)ireii>e  liearing  obviously  dei>eiid.s  n|Kiii  the  meaning  of  the  wtnils  "no  siieh   s 
Ilielit." 

Now  tho  word  "  Hueh '"  grammatienlly  «|iinli(ieH  the  word  "  wttleinent  "  l>y  lefi  rring 
to  the  .inteicdeiit  e\|»ressioii  "  amiealde  settlement."  "Siieh,"  theieloie,  means  •iimi- 
(alile;'and  the  rij;lit  reserved  ity  llie  American  Coinmissioiui.s  is  grammalieally  u 
lij^ht  to  revive  the  (|iiestioti  of  indirect  Iomwh  in  llic  en nt  of  no  umiaihli  mllli  nu  iit  biiinj 
iiKitti'.  and  is  nothing;  more. 

It  Is  to  he  olisi'ived  that  at  this  time  no  luojiosal  whatever  hail  heeii  made  lor  iiay- 
iiieiit  of  a  gross  Slim,  or  for  any  iiaiticnlar  form  or  mode  of  settlement. 

The  (inly  remaining  (|iiestion  is  'vhether  the  Treaty  was  ii.self  "an  amiealile  settlo- 
iiieiit."  or,  which  is  the  same  tlii  ig  for  the  inirposes  of  the  arginneiit,  was  in  indiiiv 
tow.'iid  .'III  amiealde  si'ttleiiieiil ,  and  a  step  on  the  road  to  it. 

This  (|iiestion  is  answered  liy  t lie  )(reaiiil)lc  of  the  Treatv.  which  declares  that  tho 
rresident  of  the  Iniled  .States  hi.d  (.is  well  as  Iler  Miijesty)  given  his  Commissioners 
(citaiii  powers  "in  order  to  pro\  idc  for  an  amiealde  sell  lenient  "of  cei  lain  dill  t  ieiic>s, 
in  which  tliv  "Alahama  claims"  were  included  :  that  these  powers  had  hccn  ciimpared 
iiiid  \erilied;  and  that  in  virtue  of  thein  the  ('ommissioiieis  had  agreed  ii|ion  the 
Ailiilcs  of  the  Treaty  w  liieli  are  then  set  fortii  in  order.  The  "  amiealde  seitii  nieiit  " 
is  lieie  distinctly  recogiiixed  uot  as  a  parlicalar  soliili«i  o^  >he  peiidiii;;  i|insiions 
which  had  liecn  pro]iosed  and  set  aside,  lint  as  an  oliject  of  negotiation  which  had  lieeii 
provided  for  in  a  manner  satistactory  to  liotli  parties,  and  the  proxision  lor  which  was 
ciiiltodied  in  the  Treaty.  The  reservation,  therefore,  made  by  the  ,\meiicaii  Comniis- 
dioni'is  had  not  eoiiie  into  play  :  the  w.iiver  remained  in  full  force;  and  the  indirect 
losMs  were  excluded  by  the  preamble  of  tin-  Treaty  from  the  scope  of  the  arbilialitiii. 


TAirr  II. 

On  ih<'ioii«lriirlioii  of  thr  Tiraty  »/  Wdshiiiijtou. 

rpon  the  eoiistriictioii  of  the  Treaty  of  Wa.shington,  apart  from  the  I'rolocids,  there 
aiipear  to  be  three  i|uestions  : 

riiti.  \\hat  <  lainis  are  ilescribed  by  the  words, " //ic  vluims  gviiericitlh)  kiunni  an  Ike 
'Aliihitma  Clitims .' '  " 

,S(<(»//(/.  What  vessels  are  described  by  the  words,  "  Ihf  xrrenil  fcuxrh,  ivhirh  Inirc  t/iiTn 
riM- /(I  I  III'  rliiiiiixfiriitricdllji  kiioivii  ux  lli<-  'Jhibmiut  Cl((imx.'"' 

'J'liinl.  What  elaims  are  desoiibed  by  tlie  winds,  "  «//  llir  xtxid  vliiimx,  f/yoiriiiii  out  of 
aclx  III  III  mi  tied  blithe  a/oirxaid  rcxxilx^  (mil  firiivrivallii  kiioini  itx  the  '  AIiiIhiiiki  t'luinix  f"^ 
(liciiig  tlu!  wdiiis  iu  which  the  subjeet-mutter  of  the  rofereuce  to  arbitration  agreed 
ii|>oii  isdelineil.) 

Kacli  of  thes*'  (luestions will  lio  examined  separatcdy. 

1.  What  elaims  are  described  by  the  wonls,  "the  claims  fjtticrirally  known  as  the 
'Alabama  Claims?"" 

The  word  "known"  signifies  that  this  collective  ex|»i'ession  had  ac<|nired  a  dcliiiito 
Hiisc.  supposed  to  be  niutiially  understood,  from  its  use  in  [irevions  coinniuiiications, 
lulween  the  same  jiartics. 

The  word  "geneiically"  naturally  signifies  that  all  the  claims  intended  were  ijuxdim 
fHiiirix. 

Tilt)  word  "claims"  itself  i  aMi'.i>^!\'  signifies  demands  actually  presented  or  notified, 
cither  w  itli  or  w  ithoiit  a  full  spec;;:'  at  ion  of  iiarticiilars. 

The  dii)lomati(!  correspond  ii-,  ■ .  nicli  ineeeded  the  negotiation,  must  therefore  lie 
ri'lcired  to,  to  discover,  first  wh-.i.  demands  had  been  presented,  or  notified;  and 
stciiiidly,  what  had  been  the  pieviciis  u.se  of  the  jihrase  "the  'Alabama  Claims  .'"' 

The  earliest  intiinatioii  of  my  (laiiiis  against  this  country  was  in  the  letter  of  Mr. 
Adams  to  Lord  liussell,  of  !<?'»th  November,  IHti'i;  which  siwke  "  of  the  depredations 
Piiiiiiiiitted  on  the  high  seas  upon  merchant-vessels"  by  the  "Alabama,"  and  of  "  the 
nj;ht  of  reclauiatiou  of  the  Uovemment  of  the  United  States  for  the  grievous  damage 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 

i-  ilM 
— 

<»   MM 

I.I 

1'- 1 

II 

1.25 

II 
1.4    1 

M 

2.2 

IM 

1.6 


V] 


<^ 


7 


c^. 


^ 


'c3 


^^#  ^'>' 

%  .>^' 


o 


/ 


-«^ 


Photographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


4^ 


"S? 


V 


«v 


\^ 


'^<^ 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  MS30 

(716)  873-4503 


^ 


^ 


•<* 


^ 


! 


444 


TkEATY    of   WASHINGTON. 


'r!<i 


i 


done  to  tlie  property  of  tlicir  citizens,"  by  reason  of  the  escape  of  tliat  vessel  from 
Uritisli  jurisdiction  ;  and  wliidi  lefi.'iTed,  in  sujiport  of  that  allei^ed  lijilit,  to  tlic  treaty 
of  1794  between  Great  Hritain  and  the  United  States,  by  whi'  i  (as  Mr.  A(hiins  inac- 
curately represented)  "all  cases  of  dainajfc  previously  done  by  capture  of  British 
vessels  or  merchandise,  by  vessels  orii^inally  fitted  out  in  the  ports  of  the  United 
States,"  were  agreed  to  be  referred  to  a  coniuiission,  to  award  "the  nticcssary  sums  for 
full  comi)ensafion."  He  added,  that  he  had  received  directions  from  his  Governuieut 
"to  solicit  redress  for  the  national  and  prirate  injiiriifi  already  tlms  sustained." 

On  the  lyth  February,  IBfil?;  2'Jth  April,  iHiV.);  7th  July,  18G:J;  24th  Anjrnst,  1,«(1;5 ; 
19th  S(!pt«'inber,  IStKi,  and  2M  October,  18(5;?,  Mr.  Adams  presented  to  Lord  Russell  a 
series  of  definite  claims  made  a<jainst  the  Gov»!rnm<,'nt  of  this  country  by  partictdar 
American  citizens,  in  respect  of  sldps  and  property  belonj;in<f  to  them,  said  to  have 
been  destroyed  by  the  "Alabama,"  intimatinji,  in  his  letter  of  the  2'.ii\  October,  that 
his  Government  "must  continue  to  insist  that  Great  Britain  han  made  itself  responxibk 
for  the  damatjeH  which  the  jwacefnl,  lair-ahiding  citizens  of  the  United  Stales  sustain  hij  the 
depredations  of  the  vessel  called  the  ^.llahama.'"  He  added,  (in  an  important  passai^e 
containing  the  first  suggestion  of  arbitration  as  a  mode  of  thereafter  solving  the  <|nes- 
tion,)  "  In  repeating  this  conclusion,  however,  it  is  not  to  be  understood  that  the  United 
States  incline  to  act  dognuuically  or  in  a  spirit  of  litigation.  They  fully  comprcheml 
lu)w  unavoidably  reciprocal  grievances  must  spring  up  from  the  divergence  of  tlio 
policy  of  the  two  countries  in  regard  to  the  present  insurrection.  »  »  *  j.-,,^ 
these  reasons  I  am  instructed  to  say  that  they  frankly  confess  themselves  unwilling  to 
regard  the  present  hour  as  the  most  favorable  to  a  calm  and  candid  examination  by 
eitlier  party  of  the  facts  or  the  principles  involved  in  cases  like  the  one  now  in  question. 
Though  indulging  a  firm  conviction  of  the  correctness  of  their  position  in  rej/aril  to 
this  and  other  claims,  they  declare  themselves  disposed  at  all  times  hereafti^-,  as  well  as 
now,  to  consider  in  the  fullest  nianner  all  the  evidence  and  the  arguments  which  Her 
Majesty's  Government  may  incline  to  proflfer  in  refutation  of  it;  and,  in  case  of  an 
impossibility  to  arrive  at  any  common  conclusion,  I  am  directed  t(»  say  there  is  no  fair 
and  e(|uitable  form  of  conventional  arbitrament  or  reference  to  which  they  will  not  be 
willing  to  submit.  Entertaining  these  views,  I  crave  permission  to  apprise  your  Lord- 
ship tliat  I  have  received  directions  to  continue  to  present  to  your  notice  claims  of  the 
character  heretofore  adravced,  whenever  they  arise,  and  to  furnish  the  evidence  on  which 
they  rest,  as  is  customary  in  such  cases,  in  order  to  guard  against  possible  lUtiniate 
failure  of  justice  from  the  absence  of  it." 

In  a  later  letter,  of  lUst  October,  180;?,  Mr.  Adams  (while  presenting  other  similar 
demands  in  respect  of  property  destroyed  by  the  "Fhu'ida")  spoke  of  ^^  the  claims  fpvw- 
inf)  ont  of  the  depredations  of  the  'Alabama'  and  other  vessels  issuing  from  Jiritish  ports." 

On  the  20th  January,  18(54,  he  pres<^nted  another  similar  claim  by  the  owners  of  the 
"  Sea  Bride,"  captured  by  the  "Alaba;.  a."  And  at  later  dates  the  particulars  were 
transmitted  by  him  of  certain  claims  made  by  jiersons  whose  i>roperty  was  alleged  to 
have  been  destroyed  by  the  "  Shenandoah." 

On  the  7th  April,  18(55,  (when  the  war  was  considered  by  him  as  actually  or  virtually 
at  an  end,)  Mr.  Adams  transmitted  to  Lord  Itnssell  certain  reports  of  "depredations 
committed  upon  the  connnerce  of  the  United  States"  by  the  "Shenandoah,"  and  achled, 
"  Were  there  any  I'cason  to  believe  that  the  operations  carried  on  in  the  ports  of  Her 
M.njesty's  Kingdom  and  its  dependencies  to  maintain  and  extend  this  systematic  dej)- 
redation  upon  the  commerce  of  a  friendly  people  had  been  materially  relaxed  or 
prevented,  I  should  not  be  under  the  painful  necessity  of  announcing  to  your  Lordship 
the  fact  that  mi/  Government  cannot  avoid  entaiUnj  upon  the  Government  of  Great  Britnin 
the  rcMponsibilitif  for  this  damage"  and  he  proceeded  to  speak  of  "  the  injury  that  miglit 
yet  be  impending  from  the  part  which  the  British  steamer  'City  of  Richmond  '  had  iiad 
in  being  sufl'ered  to  transport  with  impunity  from  the  port  of  London  men  and  siipitlii's, 
to  place  them  on  board  of  the  French-built  steam-ram  'Olinthe,'  alias  '  Stoerkodder,' 
alias  'Stonewall,'  which  had,  through  a  continuously  fraudulent  process,  succeeded 
in  deluding  several  Governments  of  Europe,  and  in  escaping  from  this  hemisphere  on 
its  errand  of  mischief  to  the  other."  He  thou  went  on  to  complain  that,  by  reason  of 
a  series  of  acts,  (the  furnishing  of  "vessels,  armaments,  supplies,  and  men,")  which  he 
contended  to  be  almost  wholly  attributable  to  Great  Britain,  or  to  British  citizeus,  the 
entire  maritime  commerce  of  the  United  States  was  in  couvse  of  being  transferred,  and 
had  already,  to  a  great  extent,  passed  over  to  Great  Britain,  whose  recognition  of  the 
belligerent  character  of  the  insurgents  he  alleged  to  be  the  main  and  original  source 
of  all  this  mischief ;  adding,  "In  view  of  all  these  circumstances,  I  am  instructed, 
whilst  insisting  on  the  protest  heretofore  solemnly  entered  against  that  proceeding,'' 
(i.  e.,  the  recognition  of  Southern  belligerency,)  "  further  respectftiUy  to  represent  to 
your  Lordship  that,  in  the  opinion  of  my  Government,  the  grounds  on  which  Her 
Majesty's  Government  have  rested  their  defense  against  the  responsibility  incurred  in 
the  manner  hereinbefore  stated,  for  the  evils  that  have  followed,  however  strong  they 
might  have  hitherto  been  considered,  have  now  failed,  by  a  practical  reduction  uf  all 
the  ports  heretofore  temporarily  held  by  the  insurgeuta." 


CORRESPONDENCE  RESPECTING  GENEVA  ARBITRATION.  445 


other  siiiiilai- 


It  is  to  be  observed  that,  althongli  tlie  general  injury  to  the  commerce  of  the  United 
States  is  largely  referred  to  in  this  letter,  Mr.  Adacns  advances  no  new  cliiini  for  eom- 
pijnsation,  on  tiiat  or  aiy  other  acconnt,  (except  for  captures  made  by  the  "Slienan- 
doah,")  against  Her  >lijt;sty's  Government;  he  even  intimates  that  the  particuhir 
claim  for  the  (•a])tnres  hy  the  "Shenandoah"  wonld  not  then  have  been  made,  if  iiis 
Ciivernment  conld  have  felt  assured  that  no  further  operutious  of  the  hko  nature  would 
take  jdace. 

Tiiis  letter  led  to  a  prolonged  controversial  argument,  in  the  course  of  which  (on  the 
4tli  ilay,  ISCm)  Lord  Russell  observed  that  he  could  "never  admit  that  the  duties  of 
Great  Britain  towanl  tlie  I'nited  States  were  to  be  measured  by  the  losse ",  wliieh  the 
trade  and  eommeree  of  the  United  States  might  have  sustained,"  and  said,  "  Tlio 
(liiestion,  then,  really  comes  to  this:  Is  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  assume  or  bo  lia- 
lile  to  u  responsibility  for  conduct  whicli  Her  Majesty's  Governnuint  did  iill  in  their 
l)()\ver  to  i)revt!nt  and  to  jiuuisli  ?  A  responsibility  which  Mr.  Adams,  on  tlie  part  of 
tlie  United  States  Government,  in  the  case  of  Portugal,  positively,  iirndy,  and  justly 
(Icclined.  Have  you  considered  to  what  this  responsibility  would  amounrf  (Jreat 
liiitain  would  become  thereby  answerable  for  every  ship  that  may  have  left  a  British 
IKiit  and  have  been  found  afterwards  used  by  the  Confederates  as  a  ship  of  war";  nay, 
iiime,  for  every  cannon  and  every  musket  used  by  the  Confederates  on  board  any  sliij* 
(if  war,  if  maiinfactuied  in  a  British  workshop."  To  which  Mr.  Adams  rei)lied  (*^()rh 
May,  IHfi"))  by  a  "  recapitulation"  of -nine  points,  which  he  said  he  had  desired  to  eni- 
binly  in  his  previous  arguments.  These  jtoints  (beginning  with  the  recognition  of 
Southern  belligerency  on  tlie  high  seas,  and  alleging  this  belligerency  to  havt;  been  in 
fiict  created,  after  the  recognition,  by  means  derived  from  Great  Britain)  mentioned, 
miller  the  7th  head,  "  the  huniiny  and  destroying  on  the  ocean  a  larr/c  number  of  mrrehant- 
fcf'fcin  and  a  veri/  targe  amount  of  propertg  betonging  to  the  people  of  the  United  Stated," 
The  f^th  and  9th  heads  wert;  thus  worded: 

"H.  That,  in  addition  to  this  direct  injury,  the  a,ction  of  these  British  built,  manned, 
and  armed  vessels  has  had  the  indirect  eftect  of  driving  from  the  sea  a  large  portion  of 
the  commercial  marine  of  the  United  States,  and,  to  a  corresponding  extent,  enlarging 
that  of  Great  Britain,  thus  enabling  one  portion  of  the,  British  people  to  derive  an  un- 
just advantage  from  the  wrong  committed  on  a  friendly  nation  by  another  portion. 

"9.  That  the  injnrien  thnu  received  by  a  country  which  has,  meanwhile,  sedulously 
endeavored  to  perform  all  its  obligations,  owing  to  the  imperfection  of  the  legal  means 
lit  baud  to  prevent  them,  as  well  as  tlu^  nnwillingness  to  seek  for  more  stringent  jiowers, 
an-  of  KO  firace  a  nature  as  in  reaton  andjunlicc  to  constitute  a  valid  claim  for  reparation  and 
iMlimnification.'^  Later  on,  in  the  sanie  letter,  Mr.  Adams  also  said:  "Your  Lordshij) 
is  pleased  to  observe  that  you  can  imver  admit  that  t'le  duties  of  Great  Britain  toward 
the  United  States  are  to  be  nieasun-d  by  tlit<  losses  which  the  trade  and  commtnce  of 
the  United  States  may  have  sustained.  To  which  I  would  ask  permission  to  reidy, 
that  no  such  rule  was  ever  desired.  The  true  standard  for  the  measun-ment  wouhl 
sffui  to  be  framed  on  the  basis  of  the  clear  obligations  themselves,  and  the  losses  that 
spring  from  the  imperfect  performance  of  them  ;"  and  "thus  it  is  that,  whatever  may 
he  the  line  of  argument  1  pursue,  I  am  compelled  ever  to  return  to  the  one  (ionclusion  : 
///('  ualion  that  recognized  a  Power  asa  hvlligerent  before  it  had  built  a  vessel,  and  became  itself 
(//(!  sole  source  of  all  the  belligerent  character  it  has  ever  possessed  on  the  ocean ,  must  be  regarded 
an  responsible  for  all  the  damage  that  has  ensued  from  that  cause  to  the  eoiumerce  of  a  J'ower 
with  which  it  was  under  the  most  sacred  of  ol3ligations  to  preserve  amity  and  jieaee." 
It  will  be  seen  that,  although  the  general  projjositions  of  this  letter  might  he  wido 
enough  to  include  the  largest  imaginable  demands,  it  nevertheless  abstains  IVom  put- 
ting forward  any  new  claim  in  a  definite  or  tangible  form;  and  purports  rather  to 
reciipitulate  and  adhere  to  the  tenor  of  the  preceding  correspouilence.  Ami  in  this 
si'iise  it  was,  evidently,  understood  by  Lord  Russell,  who,  in  his  answer  of  150th  August, 
IfG."),  referred  to  the  suggestion  of  an  arbitration  contained  in  Mr.  Adams's  former  let- 
ter of  the  23d  of  October,  18(i3;  and,  while  declining  "either  to  wake  reparation  and 
'Ompensation  for  the  captures  made  by  the  ^Alabama,''  or  to  refer  the  question  to  any  foriMgu 
folate,"  ott'enul  a  reference  to  a  Commission  of  "all  claims  arising  during  the  late  civil 
war,"  which  the  two  Powers  should  agree  to  refer  to  the  Commissioners.  And  again, 
oil  the  '.'Uh  October,  he  repeated:  "There  are,  I  conceive,  many  claims  uptni  which 
the  two  Powers  would  agree  that  they  were  fair  subjects  of  investigation  before  Com- 
iiiissiouers.  But  I  think  you  must  perceive  that  if  the  United  States  Gorernment  were  to 
propose  to  refer  claims  arising  out  of  the  captures  made  .',v  the  'Alabama^  and'Shiinandoah  '  to 
the  Commissioners,  the  answer  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  must  be  in  cousisti^ney 
with  the  whole  argument  I  have  maintained,  in  conformity  with  the  views  entertained 
•j;  your  Government  iu  former  times.  I  should  bo  obliged,  in  answer  to  such  u  pro- 
posal, to  say :  For  any  acts  of  Her  Majesty's  subjects  committed  out  of  their  jurisdic- 
ti'Mi  and  beyond  their  coiitrol,  the  Government  of  Her  Majesty  are  not  responsilde,"  &c. 
Uu  the  aist  of  October  Mr.  Adams  addressed  a  long  letter,  with  iiumerouM  inclosures, 
to  Lord  Russell,  with  reference  to  the  "Sbeuandoah,"  alleging  that  vcnsel  to  have  been 
received  by  the  authorities  at  Melbourne  with  knowledge  of  au  illegal  eiiuipmeut  iu 


446 


TREATY   OF    WASHINGTON. 


this  ennutry;  and  insisting  that,  on  that  account,  Her  MujvKtifs  Government  (isn/nnid  a 
resjiounihililfi  forall  the  damage  whieh  it  hud  done,  tuul  whicli,  (h)\vii  to  tho  latest  iU'cmiiits, 
it  was  still  (loin<^,  to  tlus  peaceful  connnerce  of  the  rnite<l  States  on  the  ocean."  A  ]i;ii- 
ticnlar  claim  by  the  owners  oi"  a  ship  captured  by  the  "Shenandoah"  was  pi'eseutid 
with  this  letter. 

In  his  letter  to  Lord  Clarendon  of  the  21st  November,  IHOf),  ^Ir.  Adams,  uufh-r  tlio 
instriK-tionsof  his  (Jovernment,  declined  Lord  Kiisst'lTs  proj)osal  tor  a  limited  reti  ri'nce 
to  CommissioMisrsof  such  claims  as  the  two  Governments  could  aj!;ree,  upon.  "Adliciiny;."' 
he  says,  "as  my  Government  does  to  the  opinion  flint  the  elaimn  it  han  presented,  whicli 
His  Lordship  has  thon<>;ht  tit  at  the  outs«!t  to  exclude  from  consideration,  are  just  and 
reasonable,  I  am  instructed  to  say  that  it  sees  now  no  occasion  for  further  delay  in  j^iv- 
in}I  a  full  answer  to  His  Lordship's  propositions." 

The  whole  result  of  this  corn^spondence,  down  to  the  change  of  Administration  iu 
this  couutr,,  in  IHUG,  umy  be  thus  suuuued  up: 

1.  That  notwithstanding  continual  complaints,  oxteiuling  over  a  vast  range  of  sub- 
jects, from  the  recognition  of  the  belligerency  of  the  Southern  States  downwards,  no 
"claims"  against  this  country  were  ever  delined,  fornmliited,  or  presented  on  the  pint 
of  the  United  States,  except  for  tho  specific  losses  of  American  citizen^  arising  from  tins 
ca)»turt!  of  their  vess^ds  and  property  by  the  "Alabama,"  "  Fhu'ida,"  aiul  "  Shtuiandoiili ;" 
and  ("J)  that  no  such  form  of  expression  as  "  the  Alabama  clnimH  "  had  ever,  down  to  tliis 
tiiut,'  been  used  to  describe  even  the  claims  in  resjK'ot  of  those  captures,  much  less  to 
conipreheiul  any  more  vague  and  indefinite  demands  of  imlemnity  to  the  general  mcr- 
cantih^  or  national  interests  of  the  United  States. 

On  the  accession  of  Lord  Derby  to  power,  Mr.  Seward  in  a  dispatch  to  Mr.  Adiuns, 
dated  the  5,*7th  August,  lH(!fi,  thus  defmed  the  "claims"  which  it  had  been  the  oltject  ot' 
the  United  States  to  press  iu  the  prectMling  corres])ondence,  and  of  which  he  now  ii^aiii 
instructed  ^Ir.  Adams  to  urg(!  the  settlement:  "You  will  herewith  receive  a  sumiiiiuy 
of  elaims  of  eiti:enn  of  the  United  Slates  af/ainst  Great  Britain  for  damaffes  whieh  ircre  suf- 
fered hji  them  during  the  period  of  our  laie  civil  war  and  souu;  mouths  therciifter.  /)// 
means  of  depredations  upon  onr  commereial  marine,  eoinmitted  on  the  high  sttas  by  the  'Sum- 
ter,' the  ^.llabama,'  the  'Florida,'  the  '  Shenandoah,'  and  other  ships  of  war,  which  were  built, 
nuinued,  arnu-d.  equipped,  and  fitted  out  iu  Ihitish  ports,  ami  dispatched  theret'idiii 
by  or  through  the  agency  of  British  subjects,  and  which  were  harbored,  sheltend, 
l)rovided,  and  furnished,  as  occasion  re»|uired,  during  their  devastating  career,  in  ])()rts 
of  the  realm,  or  iu  piU'ts  of  British  Colonies  iu  nearly  all  (larts  of  the  globe.  The  l<dik 
is  not  sufiposed  to  be  complete,  bnt  it  presents  uneh  a  reeapitulntion  of  the  elaims  as  ihetrideiin 
so  far  reeeired  in  this  Department  enables  me  to  fnrnish.  Defieicneies  ivill  be  snppliid  hen- 
afler.  Most  of  the  elaims  have  b(>en  from  tinu!  to  time  brought  by  yourself,  as  the  I'resl- 
deiit  directed,  to  the  notice  of  Her  Majesty's  Government,  and  made  tlu;  snbji'ct  ot 
earnest  ami  coutiiuied  appeal.  That  apiieal  was  intermit  led  only  when  Her  Majesty's 
Goverunu'iit,  after  elaborate  discussions,  refused  either  to  allow  the  claims  or  to  refer  them 
to  a  Joint  Claims  Commission,  or  to  submit  the  t|Uestiou  of  liahilitii  therein  to  any  lonu 
of  arbitration.  The  United  States,  on  the  other  hand,  have  all  the  time  insistiMl  u|i(in 
the  elaims  as  just  and  valid.  This  attitude  has  been,  and  doubtlessly  coutiuiws  to  lie, 
well  umlerstood  by  Her  Majesty's  Governnuuit.  Tlio  consideriitious  which  inelincil 
this  Government  to  suspend  for  a  time  the  pressure  of  the  claims  upon  the  attention  of 
Great  15ritain,  are  these:  The  political  excitement  in  Great  Britain,  which  arose  dnrinj; 
the  progress  of  the  war,  and  which  did  not  immediately  subside  at  its  comlnsioii, 
seenu'd  to  render  that  period  somewhat  unfavorable  to  a  deliberate  examination  of  the 
very  grave  <iuestions  which  the  claims  involve,  &c.  *  *  The  principles  u])on  wliicli 
the  claims  are  asserted  by  the  United  States  have  been  explained  by  y(uirself  in  an  claim- 
rate  correspondence  with  Earl  Knssell  and  Loid  Clareiulon.  In  this  respect,  tin  re 
seems  to  be  no  deficiency  to  be  sujiplied  by  this  Department.  *  *  *  //  i^  the 
President's  desire  that  yon  now  call  the  attention  of  Lord  Stanley  to  the  claims  in  a  respectfal 
but  earnest  manner,  and  inform  him  that,  iu  the  President's  judgment,  a  settlement  nf 
them  has  become  nrgenthj  necessary  to  a  re-establishment  of  entirely  friendly  relations 
between  tho  United  States  and  Great  Britain.  Ihis  Government,  while  it  thus  insint^ 
upon  these  particular  claims,  is  neither  desirous  nor  willing  to  assume  an  attitude  unkind 
or  unconciliatory  toward  Great  Britain.  If,  on  her  part,  there  are  claims  either  of  a 
commercial  character,  or  of  boundary,  or  of  commercial  or  judicial  regulation,  which 
Her  Majesty's  Government  esteem  important  to  bring  under  examination  at  the  present 
time,  the  United  States  would,  in  such  case,  be  not  unwilling  to  take  them  into  con- 
sideration in  connection  with  the  claims  which  are  now  presented  on  their  pari,  and  with  a 
view  to  remove  at  one  time,  and  by  one  comprehensive  settlement,  all  existing  causes 
of  misumlerstaiuling." 

Mr.  Seward  proceeded  to  recommend,  in  stipport  of  these  claims,  the  nse  of  the  same 
general  arguujents,  (including  prominently  the  alleged  effect  of  the  recognition  ot 
Southern  belligerency,  and  the  general  injnry  to  the  national  commerce  of  the  United 
States,)  which  had  been  previously  so  often  employed  Mr.  Adams.  He  added  :  Thf 
claims  upon  which  we  inaiat  are  of  large  amount.    They  affect  the  interest  of  many  thousand 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION.      447 


linistiation  in 


ciihens  of  (he  United  States,  in  various  parts  of  thn  RopnWic.    Tbe  jnstico  of  the   claima 
issnstaiuwl  hy  the  iinivetHal  st-ntiiiuMit  of  tlio  iicoplo  of  the  United  States." 

The  eliiiniH  specified  in  tlie  iiielosure  to  tiiis  dispateh  (vhich  is  lieaded,  "  ASi(Hi»i«ri^ 
of  chdmHof  vitizcns  of  the  United  Stiittxaijainut  Great  liritain")  relate  exclusively  to  losses 
sustained  Ity  the  owners  and  insurers  of  divers  ships  and  carjioes  captured  l)y  the  "Ala- 
bama," the  "  Shenandoah,"  the  "  Florida,"  and  the  "  Georgia,"  respectively. 

This  disjiatch  having  heen  couiinunicated  hy  Mr.  Adams  to  Lord  Stanley,  his  Lord- 
ship, through  Sir  F.  Bruce,  (Lord  Stanley  to  Sir  F.  Bruce,  :?Oth  Noveniher,  IrHif),)  called 
utteution  to  what  he  supjiosed  to  he  an  accidiMital  error  of  Mr.  Seward,  in  mentioning 
the  "  Sumter;  "  which  "  did  not  i)rocfed  from  a  British  port,  but  was  an  American  ves- 
sel, and  eomnienced  her  career  by  escaping  fn)m  the  'Mississippi.'"  Then,  after  deal- 
ing with  Mr.  Seward's  gcMieral  arguments,  and  declining  to  abandon  the  ground  taken 
by  former  Governments,  "so  far  as  to  admit  the  liability  of  this  country  for  the  claims 
then  and  now  put  forward,"  he  expressed  his  sense  of  the  "inconveuience  which  arose 
honi  thti  existence  of  unsettled  claims  of  this  character  between  two  jtowerful  and 
friendly  Governments,"  and  his  willingness  to  adopt  the  princijtle  of  arbitration,  pro- 
vided that  a  fitting  arbitrator  could  be  found,  and  that  an  agrtusnient  could  be  como 
to  as  to  the  points  to  which  arbitration  should  ai>ply.  Ho  objected  to  refer  to  arbitra- 
tion the  (piestion  of  the  alleged  prennituie  recognition  of  the  Confederate  States  as  a 
belligerent ;  saying  "  the  act  complained  of,  ivhilc  it  bcarn  wry  rcmotthj  on  the  clainw  now 
in  (im-ntion,  is  one  as  to  which  every  State  must  be  held  to  be  the  sole  judge  of  its  duty." 
Ill  another  dispatch  to  Sir  F.  Bruce,  of  the  same  date,  he  says,  "I  have  confined  myself 
I'xclusively  to  the  consideration  of  the  .Imcrican  ctaims,  put  forward  in  Mr.  SiwtinVx  dis- 
putch  to  Mr.  Adams  of  the  27th  Ant/lint,  and  arinint/  out  of  the  dejnrdationn  committed  on 
American  commerce  by  certain  c)7(i>«c,s  of  the  Confederate  States.  But,  independently  of 
tlicse  claims,  there  may,  for  aught  Her  Majesty's  Government  know,  he  other  elamm  on 
thcimrt  of  American  citizenn,  originating  in  the-  events  of  the  latt>  civil  war,  while  there 
itrtainl.v  are  vtsry  luuneronslhitish  claims  arising  out  of  thosts  events,  which  it  is  very 
(bsirable  should  be  incpiired  into  and  adjusted  between  the  two  countries.  *  *  * 
The  (iovernment  of  the  United  States  have  brought  before  that  of  Her  Majesty's  one 
(/rtw  of  claims  of  a  peenliar  character,  pnt  forward  hy  American  citizens,  in  regard  to 
wliich  you  are  authorized  by  my  other  dispatch  of  this  date  to  make  aprojtosal  to  Mr. 
Seward;  hut  J  ler  Majexty's  Government  hare  no  correspondintj  class  of  claims  to  nrtje  npon 
fk  attention  of  the  American  Gorernnient.'"  And  he,  j)res»;ntly  afterwards,  speaks  of 
"//«'  special  American  claims,  to  which  my  other  dispatch  alludes,"  an  expression  which 
is  adopted  and  repeated  by  Mr.  Sewartl,  in  his  reply  to  Sir  F.  Bruce,  (I'^th  January, 
l-(i7.) 

Ill  a  further  dispatch  to  Mr.  Adams  (I'ith  January,  1807)  Mr.  Seward  justifies  and  re- 
atHniis  the  sentence  in  his  letter  <tf  tlu;  '27th  August,  in  which  the  "Sumt(ir"was 
iiiiiitioned,  as "  substantially  correct,"  on  the  ground  that  that  vessel  had  been  admitted 
into  the  British  ports  of  Trinidad  and  (Jibraltar,  and  •'  allowed  to  be  sold"  (in  tlielatti>r 
[KU't)  "  to  British  buyers  for  the  account  and  bemdit  of  the  insuigcnts ; "  and  afterward 
it'ieived  under  the  British  flag,  at  Liverpool.  His  ])ractical  conclusion  is  that  "  the 
I'liited  States  think  it  not  only  easier,  but  more  desirable,  that  Great  Britain  should 
!n.kiio\vledge  and  satisfy  the  claims  for  indemnity  which  we  have  submitted  than  it  would 
be  to  find  an  e<|ual  ami  v  ise  arbitratttr  who  would  consent  to  adjudicate  them.  If, 
liowcver.  Her  Majesty's  Goveruiiicnt,  for  reasons  satisfactory  to  them,  should  pnifer  the 
remedy  of  arbitration,  the  United  States  would  not  object.  The  United  States,  in  that 
case,  would  expect  to  refer  the  whole  controversy,  just  as  it  is  found  in  the  correspoml- 
ciico  which  has  taken  place  between  the  two  Governments,  with  such  further  evidence 
:iml  arguments  as  either  party  may  desire,  without  imjtosing  restrictions,  conditions, 
111'  limitations  upon  the  umpire,  and  without  waiving  any  principle  or  argument  on 
either  side.  They  cannot  consent  to  waive  any  tiuestion  upon  the  consideration  that 
it  involves  a  point  of  national  honor;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  they  will  not  rerpiire 
that  any  (luestiou  of  national  pride  or  honor  shall  be  expressly  ruled  and  determined 
as  such." 

To  this  Lord  Stanley  (9th  March,  1867,  to  Sir  F.  Bruce)  replied :  "  To  such  an  exten- 
sive and  unlimited  reference  Her  Majesty's  Government  cannot  consent,  for  this  reason, 
among  others,  that  it  would  admit  of,  and  indeed  compel,  the  submission  to  the  arbiter 
lit' the  very  question  which  I  have  already  said  they  cannot  agree  to  submit,  llw  real 
mnlter  at  issue  between  ttui  two  Governments,  when  kept  apart  frctm  collateral  considera- 
tions, (8  whether,  in  the  matters  connected  with  the  vessels  out  of  whose  depredations  the  claims 
')f  American  citizens  have  arisen,  thecoJirse  pursued  by  the  British  Govennnent,  and  by 
tliose  who  acted  under  its  authority,  was  such  as  would  involve  a  moral  responsibility 
I'll  the  part  of  the  British  Government  to  make  good,  vithei'  in  whole  or  in  part,  the  losses 
of  American  citizens.  This  is  aplain  and  simple  question,  easily  to  be  considered  by  an  arbiter, 
t»d  admitting  of  solution  tvithout  raising  other  and  wider  issues ;  and  on  this  <|uestion  Her 
Miijt'sty's  Government  are  fully  prepared  to  go  to  arbitrati(m,  with  the  further  proviso 
tliiit,  if  the  decision  of  the  arbiter  is  unfavorable  to  the  British  view,  the  cjcamination  of 
^k  several  claims  of  citizens  qf  the  United  States  shall  be  referred  to  a  Mixed  Commisaion, 


K'"! 


448 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


with  the  viriv  to  the  firttlcment  of  the  mimn  to  he  paid  on  them,"  His  Lordship  tlicii  n'ponts 
that,  (k'diiiinK  it  importaiit  "tiiat  th«  adjudication  of  tliis  (pu'stion  .should  not  leave 
other  qucHliom  ofvlninw,  i)i  which  their  respeetire  siihJe.ctH  or  citizeiin  matj  he  interested,  to  lie 
matter  of  further  disagrconuuit  hetwcuMi  the  two  (iountriea,  her  Majesty's  fioveriiiiient 
tliink  it  necessary,  in  theevent  of  an  understandiujjbcin^jcoine  to  l)et\veen  thetwofiDv- 
ernuu'uts  as  to  the  manner  in  Avliich  the  upeeial  .imeriean  claims  (irhieh  hare  formed  tiie  snti- 
jeet  of  the  correnpondence  of  which  his  prexent  dispnteh  was  the  sequel)  shouhl  be  dealt  witli, 
that,  under  a  C'onvtMitioii  to  be  separately  and  simultaneously  concluded,  the  fiencnil 
claims  of  the  sniijeets  and  citizens  of  the  two  countries  arisinjf  out  of  the  events  of  the  Inle 
war  should  be  submitted  to  a  Mixed  Commission,"  iVc.  "  Such,  then,"  (he  conchnled.) 
"  is  the  juoposal  which  Her  ^lajesty's  (iovernment  desire  to  submit  to  the  Gov(>rniiieiir 
of  the  United  .States;  limited  reference  to  arbitration  in  ref/ard  to  the  so-called  'Ahthamu^ 
claims,  and  adjv.dication  by  means  of  a  Mixed  Connnission  r)f  j^eneral  claims." 

The  lirst  occasion  on  wliicli  these  words,  "  the  so-called  ^Alabama'  d  'ms"  occurred  in 
the  course,  of  the  whole  correspondence  was  shortly  befon^  the  date  oi  this  letter;  in  a 
letter  from  Mr.  Seward  to  Sir  F.  Bruce  (l^th  January,  1H()7)  in  which  he  spoke  ofLnnl 
Stanley's  jirevious  dispatch  uf  the  :U)(h  November,  IPfifi,  as  settinjj  forth  "  the  views  of 
Her  Majesty's  (jov»!rnmt^nt  of  the  so-called  ^  Alabama'  claims  presented  in  my  disixileh  to 
Mr.  Adtnns,"  and  as  condudinj;'  with  a  j)roi)osal  of"  the  ])rinciple  of  arbitration,  atteiid- 
t)d  with  s«)me  modiiication  in  rejjard  to  those  claims."  Lord  Stanley  himself  had  si)i)keii 
of  "  the  settlement  of  the  '  Alabama  and  other  claims,"  by  means  of  the  proposals  wliicii 
he  had  authorized  Sir  F.  15ruce  to  make,  in  a  note  to  Sir  F.  Bruce,  dated  the  24tli  .Jan- 
uary, ISti".  The  same  phrase,  "Alabama  claims,"  had  also  been  used  on  (me  or  two 
occasions,  with  reference  to  the  sanus  proposed  settlement,  in  articles  which  previously 
appeared  in  some  of  the  Eiif-lish  newspapers  during  the  autumn  of  1866. 

Lord  Stanley's  letter  of  the  9tli  JIarch,  18f)7,  was,  by  his  direction,  read  to,  and  a 
copy  left  with,  5Ir.  Seward ;  and  on  the  2*1  May,  1807,  Mr.  Adams  communicated  to 
Lord  Stanley  the  substance  of  Mr.  Seward's  reply,  sayinjjj  that  "  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  adhere  to  the  view  which  they  formerly  expressed  as  to  the  best  way  of 
dealing  with  these  claims.  They  cannot,  consequently,  consent  to  a  special  and  peculiar 
limitation  of  arbitrament  in  rej^ard  to  the  'Alabama'  claims,  nnch  as  Her  Majesty's  (ir>v- 
(!rnment  su<^ij,est  They  cannot  jjivo  any  p"(?feren(ie  to  the  '  Alabama '  claims  over  others, 
in  rej;ard  to  tin-  form  of  arbitrament  snjij^ested;  and,  while  tlnsy  a<;ree  that  all  miitiial 
claims  which  arose  durinj;  the  civil  war /i('/(r<VH  citizens  and  subjects  of  the  two  connh-iis 
oujiht  to  be  amicably  and  speedily  adjusted,  they  must  insist  that  they  must  be  adjiist- 
e<l  by  one  and  tin;  same  form  of  fibunal,  with  like  and  the  same  forms,  and  on  pi  iii- 
cijiles  common  to  all."     (Lord  Stanley  to  Sir  F.  Bruce,  2(1  May,  18()7.) 

The  lan<>uaj?e  of  this  communication  led  Lord  Stauh^y  to  think  that  his  proposal 
niijjht.  perhaps,  have  been  understood  as  applyiujf  only  "to  the  claims  arisinj;  out  of 
tlu>  i)roceedinifs  of  the  Alabanui,  to  the  exclusion  of  those  arising  out  of  the  like  pro- 
ceedingsofthe  Florida,  Sheimndoah,  and  Georgia."  He  therefore  wrote  to  Sir  F.  Briuc 
on  the  24tli  of  ilay,  18()7,  saying,  "  It  is  important  to  clear  up  this  point ;  and  yon  will. 
therefore,  state  to  M"".  Seward  that  the  offer  to  ffo  to  arbitration  was  not  restricted  to  the 
claims  arising  out  of  the  proceedintjs  of  the  'Alabama,'  but  applied  equally  to  those  arisimj  out 
of  the  lUe  proeeediufi  of  the  other  ressels  that  f  hare  named."  Keferring  again  to  the  terms 
of  his  disiiatch  of  the  9th  of  March,  he  then  directs  Sir  F.  Bruce  to  inform  Mr.  Sewiird 
that  "  there  was  no  intention  on  the  part  of  Her  Majesty's  Gorernment  to  give  any  preference, 
in  regard  to  the  form  of  arbitrament,  to  the  'Alabama'  claims  over  claims  in  the  like  cateyorij'' 
thinking  that  there  must  have  been  .some  misapprehension  on  this  point,  because  "  the 
question  of  disposing  of  general  claims,  in  contradistinction  to  the  specific  claims  arisin'i 
out  of  the  proceedings  of  the  'Alabama,'  and  vessels  of  that  c/fl,SN,  bad  not  hitherto  been  mat- 
ter of  controversy  between  the  two  Governments."  Shortly  afterward,  having  spoken 
of"  the  first  or  'Alabama'  class  of  claims,"  liesaya,  "  Theoneclass,  or  the  specific  claims,  such 
as  those  arising  out  of  the  proceedinys  of  the  'Alabama'  atid  such  wsse?'*,  depend  f(U"  their 
settlement  on  the  solution  of  what  nuiy  bo  called  an  abstract  question,  namely,  whether, 
in  the  niiitters  connected  with  the  ressels,  out  of  whose  depredatio'is  the  claims  of  .Imeriean 
citizens  hare  arisen,  the  course  pursiied  by  the  British  Government,  and  those  who  acted 
under  its  authority,  was  such  as  would  involve  a  moral  responsibility  on  the  part  of 
the  British  Government /o  jhaAc  good,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  the  losses  of  Amerienii 
citizens,"  and  he  repeats  his  fctrmer  otler  of  separate  modes  of  arbitration,  as  to  the  two 
classes  of  claims,  viz,  "  those  of  the  'Alabama'  class,"  or  "  the  'Alabama'  and  such  like  claims,'' 
and  the  general  claims  of  the  citizens  of  both  countries. 

Further  discussion  ensued.  Mr.  Seward,  on  the  12th  of  August,  1867,  (in  a  disiiatch 
communicated  by  Mr.  Adams,)  said  that  he  understood  the  British  otfer  "  to  be  at  once 
comprehensive  and  sulticiently  precise  to  conclud(»  all  the  claims  of  American  citizens  fur 
depredations  on  their  commerce  during  the  late  rebellion,  which  had  been  the  subject  of  com- 
plaint on  the  part  of  the  Government  of  the  United  Slates,  but  that  the  Governinent  of  the 
United  States  wmild  deem  itself  at  liberty  to  insist  before  the  arbitrator  that  the  iutiiiil 
proceedings  and  relations  of  the  British  Government,  its  officers,  agents,  and  subjeifs, 
toward  the  United  States,  in  regard  to  the  robelliou  and  the  rebels,  as  they  occurred 


CORRESrONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION.      449 

(lining  tliiit  lobollion,  wiTc  ainoiif^  tlio  iiiiittcr.s  which  were  coiuiectod  \\\t\i  the  vesHcIs 
irho'ir  (liprctidlioiix  ircir  fomplmuvd  of.'"  lie  then  olijfctt'd  to  th(^  citiistitution  of  '  wo 
(lirt'iTciit  trilmiials,  "one  an  Arbiter  to  di'tcniiiiie  th(»  i|iit'stioii  of  th<i  moral  ifspoiiNihil- 
ity  of  tilt"  MritlHJi  (jiovoniintMit  in  rvijavd  lo  the  truMvIv  of  the  'Alabama '  daxs,  and  tiio  other 
ii.MiM'd  Coimnisnion  to  ad.jiidii'ate  tlie  8o-callt!d  j;outM'al  claims  on  both  Hidt'S,"  and 
sail!  tliat  "  in  every  cas(f "  liis  (Jovernment  "  a;; reed  only  to  unrcHtricted  arbitrutitni." 
(L(ird  Stanley  to  Sir  F.  H.Mce,  Idth  Sei)teiMber,"  lf^iJ7.) 

Lord  Staidey,  in  ids  rein.,  f  the  Kilii  November,  (throufrh  Mr.  Ford,  Kith  November, 
IsiiT,)  used  fiirtiier  ar}>'inneni.s  in  support  of  the.  Ib'itish  proposal,  tlesiynalinj;'  throngh- 
ijtit  tlie  spei;ial  class  of  claims  as  "  the  no-called  Alabama  elaimn." 

After  some  internussion  the  eorresiiond«Miee  was  resumed  by  a  dispatcdi  of  Mr.  Sew- 
iiril  to  Mr.  Adams,  exiiressiiifi;  his  wish  "  tliat  sonm  means  nuirlit  be,  found  of  arraniring 
tiic  dilfeit'iices  now  existiuif  between  Enjjfiand  and  the  United  Statt^s,  wineli  was  eom- 
iiiniiieated  to  Lord  Stanley  on  the  ir)tli  February,  \r*C}S.  The  (luestions  eiiusin;^  these 
ilillcreiiees  were  thus  enunn-rated  by  Mi'.  .Seward  :  "  1st.  The  Alabama  claims.  'M.  The 
S;iii  Juan  tibiestion.  'M\.  The  (Question  of  Naturalized  Citizens,  their  ri<;hts  and  posi- 
tion. -Itli.  TIk-  Fishery  Question ;"  and  lie  suf^ijested  that  "  the  trius  method  of  deal- 
iii;;  with  afl  these  matters  was  by  treatinjf  them  jointly,  and  endf'avoiing.  I>y  means 
lit'  11  Confeniiice,  to  settle  them  all."     (Lord  Stanley  to  Mr.  Thornton,  loth  Fel»riiary, 

XrjLjotiatiojis  followed,  in  the  lirst  instaiiee  directed  to  the  third  and  second  of  these 
tiiiir  c|nestions.  On  the'  'iOth  Octolter,  Mr.  li(!verdy  .lohnson  (who  had  now  succeeded 
Ml'.  Adams)  calletl  on  Lord  Stanley  "  to  discuss  with  me"  (says  Lord  Stanley,  in  a  dis- 
liatcli  of '.^  1st  Octolter,  18l)d,  to  Mr.  Thornton)  ''the  (inestion  ul' the  Alabama  claimn," 
)ini)posiiig  a  Mixed  Commission,  to  whom  '"all  the  claimn  on  both  siden  '^  should  bercferrt'd. 
I.iii'il  Slanlry  "•  pointtMl  out  the  inapplicability  of  this  method  of  proceeding;',  as  ap[)lied 
In  tile  Alabama  claimx  and  olhcrn  of  the  mmc  c/«s.s,"  and  su;rj;'ested,  as  arliitrator,  the 
iirad  of  a  i'rieiidly  State.  As  to  the  recoj^nitioii  of  bellii^cMeniiy,  he  said  that  Her 
Majesty's  (jovernment  could  not  (h^part  iVom  the  position  which  they  had  taki^i  up, 
"lint  that  he  saw  no  imjiossibility  in  so  fi'amin<>;  the  reference  as  that  by  mutual  cou- 
Miit,  <'ither  tacit  or  exiness,  the  didiculty  mijrht  be  avoided." 

On  (he  Kttli  November,  IHliS,  a  Convention  was  accordin<^ly  signed  (subject  to  ratifica- 
tion) between  Lord  Stanley,  on  the;  jtart  of  Ihu-  Majesty,  and  Mr.  Johnson,  on  the  part 
of  tile  I'nited  States.  By  Article  I  of  this  Convention,  it  was  ag'reed  that  "  all  claimn  of 
iiilijivin  of  I  lev  Britannic  Majcntij  upon  the  (Jovcrnineiit  of  the  United  States,  ««</  all 
'kiiiiK  on  the  part  of  citizcnn  of  the  United  Statcn  npon  the  ilorernment  of  Her  Jlritinmiv  Maj- 
■'lij,  whiidi  mi<f|it  have  been  presented  to  either  (lovernuu'nt  for  its  intei'iiosition  v.ith 
the  other  since  the  ^(ith  of  .July,  I'^o:?,  *  *  and  which  yet  remain  unsettled,  as  well  as 
aiiyolliersiich  claims  which  mij^ht  l>e  presented  within  the  time  specified  in  Article  III," 
I  viz,  within  six  months  from  the  day  <d'  the  first  nieetin<>'  of  the  Commissioners,  unless 
llicy  or  the  Arbitrator  or  Umpire  should  allow  a  further  time,)  should  be  referred  to  four 
(oiiiniissioners,  with  provision  for  an  arbitration  or  umpirajj;e,  iu  cas(>  of  their  being 
nualile  to  come  to  a  decision  on  any  claim.  Article  IV  was  in  these  terms:  "  The  Com- 
iiiissioiiers  shall  have  jiower  to  adjudicate  upon  tlw.  clann  of  claims  referred  to  in  the  official 
wrnnjiondence  between  thetwo  Governments  an  the  'Alabama'  claimn;  but  bid"ore  any  of  «/tcA 
•kimn  is  taken  into  consideration  by  them,  the  two  High  Contracting  Parties  shall  fix 
upon  some  Sovereign  or  Head  of  a  friendly  State  as  an  Arbitrator  in  n^spect  of  such 
'Minn,  to  whom  such  clans  of  claims  shall  be  reftsrrod,  in  case  the  Commissioners  shall  be 
iiiiiible  to  come  to  a  unanimous  decision  npon  the  same." 

Article  VI  provided  that"  with  regard  to  the  before-mentioned  'Alabama'  elann  of  claims, 
iiiitlier  (Jovernment  shall  make  out  a  case  in  sui)port  of  its  position,  nor  shall  any  per- 
m\  he  heard  for  or  against  any  such  (daim.  The  otHcial  correspondence  which  haa 
already  taken  place  between  the  two  Governments  respecting  the  qiu^stious  at  issue 
>liall  alone  be  laid  before  the  Commissioners,  and  (in  the  event  <d"  their  not  coming  to 
1  niiaiiimoiis  decision,  as  provided  in  Article  IV)  then  before  the  Arbitrator,  without 
wgiinient,  written  or  verbal,  and  without  the  production  of  any  further  evidence.  The 
tiiiiiniissioners,  uiianimously,  or  the  Arbitrator,  shall,  however,  be  at  liberty  to  call  for 
arifiinient  or  further  evidence,  if  they  or  he  shall  deem  it  necessary." 

Down  to  this  point  it  is  manifest  that,  in  all  the  comninnications  between  the  two 
CDinitrics  the  claims  known  and  referred  to  as  "  the  'Alabama'  claims"  were  claims  for 
I  iimt  damaije  anffercd  by  American  citizens  through  the  acts  of  the  "Alabama  "  and  similar 
vessels,  and  such  claims  only. 

\yiuMi  the  terms  of  this  convention  became  known  in  America,  the  Government  of  the 
liiited  States  desired  certain  alterations  to  he  made  in  it,  none  of  which  had  any  teud- 
t'ley  either  to  enlarge  the  category  of  the  claims  in  question,  or  to  change  the  sense 
w application  of  the  phrase  "the  'Alabama'  claims."  The  correspondence  as  to  the 
niortiliciitions  desired  continued  till  January,  UWtd,  whan  (Her  Majesty's  (government 
tiiviug  agreed  to  the  alterations  then  propose!  by  Mr.  Seward)  the  amended  Conven- 
'iuii  of  the  14th  of  January,  1869,  was  signed  by  Lord  Clarendua  and  Mr.  Rererdy 
I  Johusun. 

29  A— II 


•1 

;    -i 

1 

450 


TREATY    OF    WASHIXGTOX. 


tl 


Tlic  cDiTi'siKindriicc  (iC  lliis  pcrioil  (lii(>iii;li()ii(  iniiiMt.'iinsaiiil  coiiliriiis  tlsf  sniiM'  wliirli 


ic  woiiis 


Al; 


lIl.'MIIII 


■u 


till'  .S{)-c;illc(l  •Al;ilii;iiia  '  el; 


mils,    hiiil  11,,., 


(|uir('(l.     Ill  Lord  SI!iii1i'\"m  (lis|i.ncli  of  1  >('n'iiilH  r  ■*,  iHiis,  (,>  .Mi-.  I'liointon.  iMcniiiiaii'l 


il  coiiNullatioiis  1111(1  conrcri'iiccs  willi  .Mi'.  K'cvi'idv  .li 


1  III 


ol'tlic  (.  i>ii\  cutioii  nil  li.   K'l  li  .\o\  rmiicr.wcn'  inc 


!llisi)ii,  piioi'  to  llii"  si;j;na 


Thr -.11,11 


'miiKt  (lidiiix 


lull 


'  (11. il  iillirr  i^iiiiihir  cliiii: 


lli(\U<, 


'III)'  .so-citllid-  AUtb'imiC  diid  oilier  niniilnr  rlnlniH,''  tmtl  ''IIh' 


ciilliil  • .  l!(il>  iiiiii'  fliiiiiix,  iiikI iilliiTs  iiirliiilnl  iinilrr  tlir  siinic  lii-dd,''  arc  iIk 


il  varicti( 


jiliia-^i'  n^cd  ill  tlu'Mr  mcinoraiida  lo  di'snilin  tUv  .siili.jcct,  uli  iniatid.N'  ddiiird  in  tlui  l-'nin 


xVrticIc  ol'  tliat  ('oiivcidioii  a.s  '■'  IliccUtnnnf  clnimn  n-firriil  Id  in  the  oflirial  cin 


lii 


liclwrni  llicliro  (ionriniii  iiIh  as  Ihc  •Jliihn 
1.- 


Mr.  licNt'idv  .I(diiis()ii,  wliilc  coiiiiiimiicariiiii' a  If 


iird.  (il 


lid 


iiKi    I'hiiiiix.''     Ill  a  icttiir  of  the  hJtli  \( 

pliic  (lis)iatrli  from  Mi 


Kxpmiiiiiir 


'iiilii 


1  a  "(Micr 


a  I  approval  of  the  tcnns  of  t  lie  ( 'oii\  I'litioii,  ailciwai  ds  modi  I 


various   imporlaiil    jioiiits.  was  accoiiipiinicd   h.v  a   stipiiialioii   tlial  Wasjiin^i 


not   Lomloii,   wlioiild    he    tlii^   plai;i 


ll'!|   111 

Oil.  aiiij 


Ma,J!-sl.v">  (iovcrmiiciil    a.->.M'iili'<l,)  .said,  "I  lliiiilv   fl 


iiicctiiij;  of  till'   ('omiiiissioiii'rs,   to   wliich   lli 


ill 


id\a:,la' 


to  ///(■   '.tliihii 


-la 


ima.ils 


II 


staled    tlir  olijcctioiis   tlicii   tirn'i'd    li.v  Mi 


dispalidi   of  I'Otli  \o\fiiilicr,  I'^ii"',  Mr.   'I'liomi 


aril   lo  I  lie  (Jomciiti 


nil 


Scwa 
claim- 
>•  Ihr 


iii.^\ldcli  .Mr. 


Ill  also  sjiolic  of  Ilii- (daiuiH  im-iil  ioiicd  in   Arlicdr  I\'as  "Ihr  '.llnliaiiia  '  anil  inn- 


and   '• ///r './/((/>(/«it '  r/(/(//i.v,"  and  of  till'  i»i'rson.s   iiilcicsti'd  in   lliosc  idiiin 


iliili< 


(iiiia '  clainiaiil 


Mr.  Scwaid'.s  dispatcli   of  tlit'  ViTth  Xovcnilirr  to  .M 


crit.v  .loaiisoii  ((;oniiiiiiiii<!at('d  to  Lord  Clari'iidon  on  tl 


Is  as 


r.  lii'V- 


IllC 


;iliii' 


iii;;iia'.;i', 


Hi 


(1  Di'ci'iiiln'r)  r('i)i'atcdly  (111- 


ivs. 


'I'lic  Initcd  Sl.'itcs  arc  ()l)li!;('(l  to  disallow  tli 


Arliid.'    1\'.     Till'    Initcd   States   lia\c  no  (dijcctioii   to  tln^  lirst  clause  of  i  lie  Article, 
wliicli  declares  thai  tin;  L'oniiiiissioncrs  shall  ha\'c  power  to  ad.jiidicaic  upon  thrmhi-iilUil 


•.Ihlhu 


(■laiiiix.     Indeed,  the    rnited   .'•■l.il 


cs    woiili 


cause   oi'  il.s  cx] 


licitncss  with  leii.ard    to  Ihc  Wlah 


1     Willi 

In 


\\  relain    1  !i;s   elaiiM 


lania     cliiniix 


'I'll 


lev  did  not,  ill   il 


iiisl ructions   to   voii,   insist    upon  such   a 


"II, 


■iai   direction    in  rc>>iird  to  Ihc 


I  Id 


liiil  oiilv  hecanse   tlicv  thoimiit   that  special  mention  of  Ihi 


III  mil 


I'sr   cliniiix  liil<'|it  111' 


(IceiiK  il  men 


nveiiicnt    rtii  the  jiart   of  !lcr   .Majesi.\'s  (iovernnicnt ;  wliilc  it  cniild 


mil 


admit  ol'  doiiht  that  lh<-Kc  xo-ci'lnl  ^.Ualiiinia'  cliiiiiixirirc  jilaiiilj/  iiirhiilid,  ax  mil  ax  nil 
other  I  liiinix  of  cili'.inx  of  Ihr  I'niird  Slnlix,  in  the  cnmprelieiisivc  d('seri]it ion  of  claiii^ 
contained  in  Article  I.  Sccondlv.  itis  to  he  considci  i'(l  hy  Her  Majesty's  (Jovermiiciir 
that  //((■  'Alahania^  claxx  of'  claimx  coiixliliilc  Ihc  lari/rxl  anil  mnxl  malrrial  aj  Ihr  inliri  hu/.n- 
oj'  cl  limx  of  ciH:ciifi  of  Ihc  Vnilcd  Slalix  Uijainxt  Ureal  Jlrilain,  which  it  ix  Ihc  ohjccl  of  Iki 
Vonrciiiinu  III  adjnxl,  L'poii  Ihr'Alalnimn'  eluinix.  as  well  as  all  olhcrs.  this  (ioveniiiiciit 
is  content  to  (duaiii,  and  most  earnestly  desii 


judicial  trial  and  decision.     This  (;ov( 


es,  a    pel 


teeth'  fair,  ciiiial,  and  iiiinaili.il 


aieiit  has  ahvavs  cxniieitiv  stated  tlia*^  ii 


lo  ilis"!  imiiiat  ion  in   favor  of  Uic  'Alahmna'  eLiii 


no  iiis"!  imiiiai  ion  in  tavor  ot  mc  ' .uainnna  eiiiinix.  \\\\i\  can  admit  of  no  ni;iter;al  il 
criminal  ion  a^aMist  tlicin  in  tin;  forms  of  iri.il  and  iiidnnicn  t  :  hut  must,  on  the  c( 
trary,  have  tlieiii   placed  on  the  same   hasis  as   all   otlu 


I'la  iiiis. 


Il  iiri 


ihlv 


iild  c(indiic(5  to  no 


d  end  to  set  forlii,  on  this  occ.isiou,  llie  reasons  wliv 


:  Ihi 


'Alaliaiiia'  claimx,  mnrr  Ihan  anij  olhrr  claxn  of  inlrrnalional  claimx  (.rixlii,-/  belirccn  Ihc  lini 
cDiin I ri :■■■■.  are  the  rerij  claimx  aijainxl  which  Ihc  I'nile/I  Slalix  eaniutl  ai/rec  In.  or  admit  i>l'(iii;i 
2>rejndiciiil  dixcriminalion.  To  [ireseiit  thcs(^  reasons  now  would  hti  siiii|)l.v  to  rcstalc 
ar.nunu'iits  which  have   bcoii  continually  iiresentcd   l)y  this  Department  in  all  the  Im- 

nier  slai;es  of  this  cor.trovers.v  ;   wliih?  it  is  fair  to  admit  that  these  reasons  li.avc  I i 

controverted  with   eipial   perscvevaiico    by  Her   Majesty's    Jiepartmeiit    for    I'oici;;! 
Affairs."' 


Th 


icral  result  of  this  corrcspoiideni'i^  was  that,  in  the  (,'onvention  of  the  14ll 


'.li 


ar.v.  1-n'i,  other  pro\  isi 


oils  were  sulistituted  for  those  of  the  H'lh  and  \'ltli  Arli- 


tlie  ('onveiitioii  of  lOtli   Xoxcmbrr,  l-'lW,  to  which  tln^   I'liited  Slates  (iovciii- 


iiiciit  liad  ohjected  : 


d  til 


le    siiecia 


ineution  of  thi!  "  Alahaimi"  was  tr.uisferred  from 


those  Articles   to  Article  1,  which  ])rovidcd  "that  all   claims  on  tlic  piirf  oJ'  siilijrrh:  i[t\ 


Majcxtij  upon  the  (iovcrnnient  of  the  L'nited  States,  and  all  i  In 


Ihr  liriln 

part  of  riliwnx  of  Ihr  I'nilid  Stalrx  upon  Ihc  dun rifmcnl  of  Jicr  Itrilaniiic  Miiii>-lii.  in 


in  III 
liiii- 


iliij  tin 


ralird  '  AlahiimiC  claimx,  which  may  have  In  en  presented  to  eiiln  r  (Jon  iriiiiH  nl 


forits  int  rposition  with  the  other  since  the  'Jlitli  of  .Inly,  IS.")!!, 
and  which  .yet  remain  iinsetthMl,  as  well  jis  any  other  such  (daims  which  may  he  im'-l 
sciitod  w  illiin   the  time  spccilied   in  Articli?  HI  of  tliis  Convention,  whether  or  imt  | 
arisiiii;-  out  of  the  late  civil  war  in  the  L'nited  States,  shall  lie  referred."  iV  c, 


litH'll 


On  the  'J'Jd  Fidiriiary,  L-^lil),  Mr.  Thornton  icportcd  to  Lord  (narendon  the  IJesol 
of  a  nia.jorit.y  of  tln^  L'omiuittee  on  Foreij;n  Kelatioiis  of  the  Senate  <d'  the  I  Jiilcil 
Stales,  recommoiidiiiif  the  Senate  not  to  ralif.v  this  Coiiventioii,  -Mr.  Siiiiiiier.  "li'l 
moved  the  resolutimi,  iiavin.n'  said  "  that  (7  corcrcd  none  of  the  princijilex  for  which  the 
United  States  had  ahva.vs  contended."  He  also  iiudosed  a  Kesolutimi  of  the  Lc^isl;i- 
tiire  of  Mussachii.setts,  "  jn'otestinj?  a,u;aiiist  the  ratilication  of  any  ('onveiilioii  wliiih 
dill  not  admit  the  linbiUfii  of  England  for  the  actx  of  the  '.llahama'  and  her  conxorlx.''  j 

On  tlii^  '2-2d  Miucli,  tS(il),  Mr!  Kevoidy  .lohii.son  (w'tiiout  any  Hpecial  iii.sl ructions)! 
called  upon  Lord  Chirondoii,  and  proposed  a  further  cliani^c  in  the  1st  Article  of  tlu' 
Couveulion,  which  he  thought  "  wonld  satisfactorily  meet  the  objections eutertaiii^Jbyl 


CORI{1•:SPO\DE^TE    lIESrECTIXO    GENEVA   AUiMTRATIOX.      451 


^"    '"fffTi 


r  si'lisi'  wliicll 
"  Imil  iinw  iic- 
in'miii'iiiiil;i  III 
Ilii>  sijiiinnvt^ 
iih;''  ••  thr  M/k- 
«,''  ami  ^'ilii'Hti- 
r.il  viuictic-;!!!' 
in  llio  I'liiivi'ii 

(■(»/•(  iHjUIIKli  III' 

Jtli  N'ovi'IiiIm;  , 
tViiin  Mr.  Srw- 
rds  miiililii"!  in 
ishiiiu'tnii.  Mtiil 
ti»  wliich   llrv 

s;iilv:ilit;i;;fnM> 

Mr.  Tliorntnii 
:  in,\vliii'li  Mr. 
hiiiiiu '  <nid  ii'di' 
hose  cliiiiiis  iis 
her  to  Mr.  li'cv- 
rc>i>r;iii''Hy  rui- 
()  (lisnllow  tl'i> 
ol'  the  Arliclc. 
IpoM  //(/■. v(»-c.l//ri' 
this   (•IniiM'.  Iii- 
i(l  ii!it.  ill   ll'-'-i'._ 
n  I  lie  '.ili'liiiiiKi' 
chliiiia  u\\'^\n  111' 
lilc  il  I'dUlil  mil 
1(1,  (i-s  mil  ux  nil 
iptiini  of  cliiiin- 
y"s  (lovcvinni'iit 
i,/  I  lie  I II I  ill  HK"'- 
}/((   iiiijrrl    iif  lii( 
iliis  (ilivi'i'iiHicnt 
1,  iuid  iiii|)aili.'.l 
!r<'il  tli!'*^  il  ii-^l'^-' 
no  miili'iiiil  ili-- 
uist.  iin  till'  fi'ii- 
iv      '     ••  li  )irii!i- 

vcnsnii.'*  wliy  "ii 
7  hrtircrii  !hf  II"' 
',1.0V  (iiiniil  (iJ'oiiH 
rnu|ily  tti  rcstiile 
ill  ii!i  llii'  liii- 
iisiiiis  liavr  liiTU 
lit    I'or    I'liii'in" 

loii  of  I  111'  111'-' 

li  iiiiil  Villi  Aili- 

St ati'^  (Jiivi'iii-  j 

v.'iiisrcrrcd  iVoiu 

iiirl  of  Ml /;;<'(•/••:  I'' 

(ill  ilii'niix  I'll  'i'" 

.l/(i/i  ■-■'//,  '"<''"'" 

I,  !•  GoviTiiiiii"! 

* 

11,  Il  iiiiiy  111'  I"''- 
\,li('llii'r  or  ii"l! 
iV  ('. 
,11  ih<"  K'.'siiliiti"" 
„f  till'  I'liili''' 
li'.  Sunnii'i'.  \vli"| 
,l,>i  Ibr  whifli  till' 
,i,,,f  till'  Li';;-i-l:'i 
, )ii  vent  ion  _vvliHii| 

tr  (V)inorlx.' 
•  ial  in.slnu'tioii^i 
[st  Ai'tiflt;  ot  till' 
useutertaiuL'dbM 


till' .'^I'liatc  to  till' ('onvcntion.  ami  woiilil  scciiii'  its  I'.itilii'ati'Hi  liy  tliat  Imily.''  Tlii-i 
iii'W  cliaiiu,'!'  (".iiisisli'il  in  tin- inlroilin't  ion  ol' ••  <///  rldiins  mi  liu  )i<irt  nf  lli  r  /Irilinniif  M<ij- 
rxlifx  dorrriiiiii  III  niton  llir  (ionriniii  itl  of  llir  Ciiihtl  Slulis.  tnul  oil  rloinix  mi  Ihr  jioii  ol'  llir 
tiui-rr II incut  of  llir  I'liiliil  SIxIrs  itjion  llir  (iorrnimcnl  of  /li r  Union ii'ii'  Mojisli/,''  as  well  ,'is  all 
rhiiiiis  ol'  sniiji'cis  ami  ('it  i/i'iis,  as  towliicii  1  in-  lannnaui'  ol'  tlic  ( 'oi  \  I'ntioii  woiiiil 
liiivi- rcinaini'd  niialli'ii'il.  iionl  Clarcmlnn  ri'imrts  w  hat  thui  loolv  iil:,rf  in  liis  dis- 
imicli  to  .Mr. 'riionifoii,  (.March  •i'j.'l-'ii'.t.)  "I  rcinarU('<l  to  .Mr.  .lolinsmi  that  liis  uro- 
]iiisai  would  inti'odnci'  an  cntiri'ly  new  rcatiirt)  in  tin-  (.'onvcntion,  which  was  lor  liic 
-lit  lenient,  ol"  claims  lictwccn  tlit^  siilfjtM-ts  ami  citizens  of  (i  real  liritain  and  the  I'liitcd 
Sr;ili's,  Imt  that  llic  tivo  (lonrnnicnlx  no!  lioriiKj  jinl  fonroni  iiiin  cloiint  on  imh  ollor,  I 
I'liiilil  oiiiy  suiipiise  tlial  his  ohjeet  was  ;o  I'avor  the  iiitrodiictioii  nf  soiiic  claim  liy  Ihc 
(iii\  eniment  oT  t  In-  I  'nil  cd  Stales  lor  in  jury  sustained  on  aci  oiint  ot'  the  poiicy  |>nrsm'd 
li\  llciMai'csty's  ( io\ernmeiii.  Mr.  IJevcrdy  .iohiison  did  mil  olijcct  to  tins  inler|iii'- 
niliiiii  of  iiis  a  mend  men  t.  Inil,  said  I  hat  if  cIoiiiik  Io  coinitinxtilimi  on  mvonnt  of  llir  nrmiiii- 
:'.nii  liij  llir  Urili^'li  (torrnniiriil  af  Ihf  Ik  llii/i  ri  nt  rii/iil.s  of  llir  I  'oiif<  drnilrx  irrrr  hiont/lil  I'or- 
ir,ii;l  liij  llir  dorrrnmrnl  of  llir  I'n'ilid  SlaUx,  llir  llfilish  (lorrrnnirnl  niiiihl,on  ih  iiorl.  hrinij 
Uifirnril  clninix  Io  ronijirnsulion  for  iloiniifirx  dour  Io  lirilhli  kiiIiJicIn  hij  Anirvintn  Idorhndrx, 
liiir'i,  if  Ihr  Confrdrriilrs  iriTr  iiol  In  llii/rrrnls,  irrrr  illffiolli/  rnfovrid  (i;iiiiiixt  llnni.''  Lord 
(.'Liirmlon,  tlieii,  after  rel'eirin;.;  totlic  jirool's  wliicii  lier  .Majesty's  (lovcriiimnt  had 
pvcii  of  their  willinjriicss  to  maUo  any  i'<'asoiial)l<(  aim'iidmcnls  to  meet  the  wishes  of 
till'  I'nited  Stales,  and  to  the  dilh-rciice  in  the  conise  of  ]iriieecdinu;  adojited  in  Anier- 
ii':i,  said  '"that  it  diil  not  seem  jiroper  for  Her  .Majesty's  (lovernmcnt  to  taUe  any  I'lir- 
iliir  step  in  the  matter,  or  to  adopt  any  amendment  to  the  (Joiisontioii,  even  if  il  had 
iii'cll  I'l'ci!  from  olijeetioii." 

.Mr.  Ilevcrdy  .loliiison  (-till  wiilimit  .'iiitlinrily)  ri'iiewed  liis  jiroji'isii  ion,  in  a  lelti-r 
til  Lord  ('l.iiemloii.  dated  'J.'itii  March,  l-l'.'.l,  ia  wiiicli  he  sr.'ited  tii.it  he  had  I'cison  to 
liriic'\e  that  the  ohjectioii  of  the  Semite  of  the  I'niled  Slates  to  the  Convention  con- 
^is|l■ll  '"ill  I  lie  fact  tliat  llie  ( 'on  vent  ion  )>rovide(!  only  i'or  tlie  settlement  liy  arliil  ration 
Hi  Ihc  indiridnul  rioihix  of  llrilish  .■<iil)j,rls  and  Anuririin  riliimx  upon  llir  nxprrlirr  (lorrrn- 
innilx,  mill  nol  for  mill  rluimx  irliirli  rilhrr  (lorrrnnirnl,  its  xnrli,  iiiiijlit  htirr  npon  llir  ollirr.'' 
"  .1/1/  dorrniiiiriil,''  lie  added,  "  hrlirrr,  as  1  jim  now  advised,  that  ('/  hnx  a  rlitini  <f  itx 
nini  upon  llrr  Mojrxlfx  dorirnmrnl,  hrcanxr  of  Ihr  conxiiiiirmrx  rrxnllhifi  from  a  prrnnilnrc 
(impiilUin  of  Ihr  Cmifidrrittrs  (hiring  our  hilr  n-iir,<ind  from  the  tiltinj;'  out  of  tlie  '  Ala- 
liaiiia'  and  other  similar  vessi'l.s  in  ller  Majesty'.s  ])orls,  and  iVom  tlicir  peiiiiitted 
Kilraiiet!  into  other  jiorts  to  Ik;  rclil  ted  and  provisioned  diirini!;  thi'ir  ]iiratii'.'il  I'l'iiise. 
llir  r.rixirnrr  of  xnrh  <t  rlidni  malvcs  it  as  necessary  tiiat  its  ascerlainmi'iit  and  adjiistinciit 
s!i;ill  lit^  provided  for  a.s  the  individual  claims  ^rowiin;'  onl  ot  the  sami;  cirenmstaiices.'' 
'file  I'nited  States  ( iovcrmiient,  flown  to  this  ti  ,  ',  liad  insisted  thai  Ihc  new  (on- 
vi'iilion  oni;ht  strictly  to  follow  tin!  prccedcnl  of  thi;  Convention  of  l-^."):!,  which  con- 
!;iiiied  no  provision  for  iuiy  species  <il'  piililii' cl.iims.  Lord  Claii'iidoii,  tliercinre,  on 
till'  •~'tl!  of  ,\piil.  1  -(id.  thus  answered  .Mr.  I'everdy  .lohnson  :  '■  I  ler  .^I;l  jesty's  ( iovern- 
iiit'iit  could  not  fail  toohseisc  that  tliis  ]iro|iosal  involved  a  wide  departure  from  tiie 
ti'ii'ir  and  terms  of  tin;  Convenlioii  of  L"^."!:!,  to  which,  in  coiiipiiance  witiiyonr  in.strm> 
liiiiis,  yon  hav'i  constantly  pressed  llci'  .Majesty's  (iovenimeiit  to  adhere,  as  necessary' 
til  insure,  llu^  ratification  of  a  new  ('oiivc'iition  liy  the  Seiiato  of  the  I'liitcd  States. 
-Viiinidiic  inijxirlaiicc  is  attached  to  this  deviation  ;  lint  I  hej;'  leave  to  inform  yon  t  iiat, 
III  fill'  oiiinioii  of  Her  Majesty's  (Government,  it  wonld  serve  no  useful  purpose  now  to 
iiiiisidcr  any  amendment  to  a  Coiivt  iitioii  whicii  <;in'e  full  effect  to  tlic  wislies  of  tlii> 
liiilcd  Stales  (ioxcriimeiit,  and  was  aiiproved  liy  the  late  rresideiil  and  Secretary  of 
^tnli'.  who  referred  it  for  ral  ilicatioii  to  the  Senate,  where  it  a.ppears  to  have  eiieniin- 
tti'i'il  ohjections,  the  nature  of  whicli  lias  not  lieeii  ol'iicialiy  made  known  to  Ilcr 
Majesty's  (iovernmcnt." 

Mr.  Iieverdy  .Johnson,  on  the  !)tli  of  .\pril,  replied  that  "  the  desii;n  of  the  (."oii\en- 
iimi  of  l^.")!?  was  to  sctlle  all  I'laiiiis  which  eitlier  (io\  eriiiiiciit,  in  lielialf  of  its  own 
tilizeiis  or  sulijects,  iiiiuiit  have  iijioii  tiie otiicr.  »  *  »  »  .11  lluil  linu'  nrillur  dov- 
niniu'iil,  <t>i  xiirli,  iniidr  a  drmttnd  upon  thr  ollirr.  lint  llitit.  ax  iiiii propoxiUoii  dxxnnirx.  is  not 
llii'  aw  non\  Thr  dorernmrnt  of  ihr  i'niird  ISIatrx  hrliinx  llml  il  hax,  in  ilx  oirn  riijhl,  0 
('(liiii  npoii  thr  doirrnnwnt  of  llrr  Majrxlii.  In  order,  therefore,  to  a  full  ,s<'tt  lenient  of 
aili'xistiiiij;  claims,  it  is  necessary  that  the  onr  which  mil  dorrrnmrnl  mahrx,  mid  anij  rorri- 
"['"tiiUnij  rtiiim  irhirh  Urr  Mdjrxtifx  dorrrnmrnl  nitiij  loirr  upon  Ihc  Vnitrd  Stotrx,  should  lie, 
nii-'liided  witiiiii  the  Convention  of  Ilic  11th  .lannary,  l-'li!).  Mij  inxlriirtionx,  to  irhirh 
.'/"'ir  f.ordxhip  refcrx,  ircrc  to  jiroridc  for  ihr  xrlllrmenl  of  iti"  vlairnx  mentioned  in  xiich 
m^lnuiionx  l»y  a  Conv<!ntioii  upon  the  model  of  the  out'  for  i'ehrnary,  1  ';:{.  'J'hiit  I  did 
Ml  xiiii<iv>it  in  thr  nrtp)tintionff  which  led  io  the  I'onmition  of  .'iinnurij  thr  including  within 
ilaiiij  dorrrnmcnIiiJ  clainix  ivcih  heranxr  mi/  iniitrncHonn  onlii  referred  to  the  indiridiiiil  (laimx 
ilfrili:eiix  and  snitjerttt.  I  forbear  to  speciilato  as  to  the  i;i'oundH  upon  wliich  my  iiistriic- 
timis  werci  xo  limited." 

Hir  Majesty's  (itovernineiit  adliorcd  to  tlieir  decision  not  to  entertain  at  tdl  the  suj;;- 
Ri'sfioii  thus  made  by  ^fr.  Reverdy  .fohnson ;  and  they  intimated  (in  correction  of  an 
cii'oueous  inference  drawn  by  him  from  the  concluding  sentence  of  Lord  Clarendon's 


i»  ':(; 


'  '■!, 

'' ' '  1 


4o2 


TRKATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


I'' 


]('tt<  r  of  the  .''til  April)  that  i^.  \vi\h  not  to  ho  m)iii])oso(1  that  tliis  jtroposal  woiiM  he 
accfplal'lc  to  Her  Majesty's  (iovrriiiiiciit,  cvrii  if  it  wcro  iiia<l('  or  rt'iicatt'd  iiiiiii  r  pusi- 
livc  iiiHtriiftioiis  from  the  UiiittMl  StatrH  (iovuriiniciit,  and  wifh  the  prospect  oricnnjn. 
afinji'  tlieentiro  eonlroversy.  (F^oid  Clarendon  to  Mr.  John.son,  lo/Zt  Ajtril,  l>iilt;  jhhI 
Mr.  .lolinson'.s  reply.  H'llk  J/ir/7,  IHti!).) 

I'roni  this  incident  in  the  history  (tf  tho  neffotiatioiis  tho  followin;^  conclusions  of 
faer  result: 

1.  That  Mr.  Rincrdy  .rohnson'.s  instrnctions  from  his  Government  nevei'  extended  to 
file  asseition  or  settlenuMit  of  any  other  claims  than  tho.so  of  individual  citizens  of  the 
Inited  Statt\s  a;;ainst  (ireat  Hritain. 

•J.  That  in  suji<^estin;f  (for  the  first  time)  the  possible  oxistenco  of  public  claims  on 
behalf  of  his  Coverinnent,  ht^  acted  without  authority. 

I!.  That  no  such  ]>ublic  claims  as  those  of  which  the  (existence  was  sn<r<iested  l»y  lijm 
lia<l  ev(!r  been  presenttMl  or  notitied;  nor  were,  even  then,  in  any  manner  delincd. 

■I.  That  the  publi('  claims,  of  which  the  possilile  existence  was  »it  su;f;;ested,  wrre  iii>t 
claims  ''erowinj;"  or  arisir>;j;  (simply)  "out  of  the  acts  of"  the  "Alabama,"  oi'  any  otlicr 
vessels;  but  claims  "becanst;  of  the  (!ouse(|uencc.s  resultinjj;  from  a  prttmature  recoy;iii. 
tion  of  the  Contederates  durinjj  the  war,  ani>  from  tho  litlinjif  out  of  the  'Alabama"  iniil 
other  siuiilar  vessels  in  Her  Majesty's  ports,  AND  fnnii  their  permitted  entrance  into 
other  ports." 

.").  Thai  the  words  ".Ihihanio  Chiimn"  (or  any  equivalent  form  of  expression)  were 
never  made  use  of,  nor  Wiis  their  tis(!  ever  pro|i()sed  to  be  varied  or  <!Xten(letl  so  as  to 
comprehend  this  new  class  of  (su^jf^ested)  iMiblic  claims. 

tl.  Tliat  the  idea  of  a  oiic-nided  reference  of  such  supi)os(Ml  ])ublic  claims  of  the  (lov- 
ornment  of  the  United  .States  only  was  nev<T  for  a  moment  adviinced  or  entertainid; 
on  the  contrary,  the  essential  condition  of  ^^r.  .fohuson's  proposal  was  that  it  slmulil 
iilso  be  ojii'ii  to  Her  Majesty  to  .advauce  .any  pultlic  claims  whattu'er  which  they  niinlit 
conceive,  theni.selves  to  liave  aj^ainst  the  Government  of  the  I'nited  Stattss — a  claim  liir 
injury  to  I'ritish  interests,  by  tlu!  assertion  and  (sxtM'cise  of  belligerent  ri^^lits  a!;ai:i>t 
]5ritish  commerce,  beinfj  expr<;ssly  anti(Mpiited,  as  a  jirobable  or  possible  set-otf  In  any 
claim  on  the  i)art  of  the  rniti^l  .Statics,  founded  upoii  the  denial  of  a  bidlij^erent  statn.s, 
at  any  ;>iveu  period,  to  the  (Jonfederates. 

7.  That,  although  otlered  under  these  conditions,  the  proposal  was  simply,  and  with- 
out ii  discn.ssion,  dtn'lined  by  Her  Majesty's  (iovernment. 

It  was  in  Mr.  Sunuicr's  s[teech,  at  the  meetinj;  of  the  Tliiited  States  Senate,  which 
refused  to  ratify  the  Convention  of  the  14th  .January,  HtJD,  that  the  first  conceptimi  of 
public  claims,  of  tho  nature  and  ma<j;nitude  of  those  now  advanced  in  tht^  "Case"  (if 
the  United  States,  was  made!  known  to  the  world.  His  arjjnnient  on  this  head  was 
thus  summed  uj>  by  Mr.  Tliornton,  (IDtli  Ai)ril,  Ir^ll'J,  to  Lord  Clarendon:)  Voiir  lordsliip 
will  per(M'ive  that  the  sum  of  iSIr.  Sunnu'r's  assertions  is,  that  En<;laud  insulted  tiu' 
Ignited  States  by  the  premature,  unfriendly,  and  unnecessary  Proclamation  of  the 
Queen,  enjoiniuf^  neutriility  on  Her  M.ajesty's  subjec^ts;  that  she  owes  them  an  apoli>;,'y 
lor  tliissteit;  that  nhe  in  renj)0)ifiiblc  for  the  propertji  dextrojud  liif  the  ^Alabama'  and  (itlnr 
Coiifi'dcrate  cntinrrfi,  and  crvn  for  the  remote  damafie  to  Amerieaii  tiliippiii)/  intcrents,  inrlntiuni 
the  'uiereaxe  of  the  rate  of  i  nun  ranee;  that  tlie  ('onfederateH  were  no  much  axHinted  hi/  heiutj  ahh 
to  i/tt  armn  o>  d  ammunition  from  Enf/hind,  and  no  much  encoura<)cd  tiij  the  Queen'it  Provtuma- 
tion.  that  the  war  lasted  mneh  longer  than  it  wonld  otherwise  hare  done,  and  that  ire  oiujht 
therefore  to  pai)  'maninary  additional  e.vpennen  imponed  upon  the  United  States  by  the  proloinja- 
tion  of  the  ?('«>•.'  Mr.  Sumner  himself  did  not  affect  to  represent  the  latter  portion,  at 
all  events,  of  his  8U};;>'ested  demiind  as  "jj;rnwin<^  out  of  the  acts  of"  tho  "Alal)aaia." 
or  of  any  other  particular  vessels;  and  Mr.  Thornton's  comment  upon  the  whole  of  it 
shows  very  clearly  tho  impossibility  .tf  ascribing  to  the  iicts  of  any  particular  vessils 
allcffcd  to  have  been  litted  out  from  Ihitish  ports,  either  the  whole  or  any  a.scertainal>lt: 
part  of  tho  jfcueral  losses  sustained  by  American  commerce  during  tho  war,  or  even 
distiufiuishing  between  such  h)sscs  of  thiit  kind  as  were  real  and  those  which  were 
ai)parent  only. 

So  far  no  step  was  taken  by  the  United  States  Government  to  adopt  Mr.  Sunmers 
views  or  to  advance  claims  corresponding  to  them.  Ou  tho  10th  of  June,  lHt)9,  Mr. 
Motley  renewed  to  Lord  Clarendon  tho  declaration  of  the  wish  of  his  Govcrmnent 
"that  existing  ditferences between  the  two  countries  should  be  honorably  settled,  and 
tliat  the  international  relations  should  be  placed  on  a  Arm  and  satisfactory  basis," 
which  Lord  Clarendon  of  course  reciprocated.  Then,  after  adverting  to  other  subjects, 
lie  said  that  "  the  Claims  Convention  had  been  published  prematurely,  owing  to  some 
accident  which  bo  could  not  explain ;  and  that  consequently,  long  before  it  came 
under  tho  notice  of  the  Senate,  it  h.ad  been  unfavorably  received  by  all  cla.s.ses  ami 
parties  in  the  United  States.  Tho  time  at  which  it  was  signed  was  thought  most 
inopportune,  as  the  late  President  and  his  Government  were  virtually  out  of  ottice,aml 
their  successors  could  not  he  committed  on  this  grave  question.  The  Convention  was 
further  objected  to  because  it  embraced  only  the  claims  of  individuals,  and  had  no  reference  I 
to  those  of  the  two  GovermMnt«  on  each  other  ;"  and,  "  lastly,  that  it  settled  no  question  ami 


is;il  wniilil  lie 
(1  iinili  r  |)iisi- 
■ct  of  liiiiiiii- 
■;/,  ls;it;  mill 

;oncl>iHii)iis  III' 

■r  pxti'iidcil  to 
;iti/-t'iis  of  Uii- 

blic  i'l;iini>*  on 

jtrntiMl  by  liiiii 
•  tli'liiii'il. 
stcd,  wiTi'  imt 
"  or  any  (itluT 
liitiii'f  i'fc(ij;iii- 
•Alal)iiinir  mill 
,  eiitriiiuc.'.  iiiti) 

pr(>sHi()ii)  wi'iT 
entloil  so  as  to 

ins  of  till'  (lov- 
1)1-  cntiTtainril; 
that  it  slioiilil 
ii-h  tlii'y  mi'^lit 
■,,.s — a  <'iaiiii  li'V 
riirlils  ai^aiiist 
(.  (si't-olV  ill  any 
lijfcivnt  status, 

nply,  ami  witli- 

s  SiMiatc.  wliiili 
it  ct)m'('i>tinn  dt' 
the  '-(.'asi'"  (if 
I  thin  lifad  was 
)  Voiu-  liinlsliip 
11(1  iiisiilti'il  till' 
uinatioii  of  tlu' 
lieiii  an  al)oll)^^v 
bama'  atid  ntk-r 
ttennts,  iiifhiiUmj 
•ited  hi  hfiiio  "'''' 
uvvii'x  Procl<im«- 
nd  that  ice  oiiy/if 
H  by  the  pnihii'ia- 
itter  portion,  at 
the  "Alaliaina. 
tho  vviiolf  t>l  it 
articular  vfssi'ls 
»y  ascertainalilt^ 
ho  war,  or  oven 
lose  which  wcic 

pt  Mr.  .Sumner's 
Juue,  IHOi),  Ml'. 
his  Govcrumcat 
ibly  settled,  ami 
■isfactory  basis, 
;o  other  suli,)«ct''i 
•  owiug  to  soiue 
'before  it  caiiu; 
,y  all  classes  ami 
as  thought  most 
outofotlice,aml 
Convention  was  | 
had  no  reference 
I  no  question  aua 


CORRESPONDKNCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    AKIJITRATION.      453 

1 
laid  down  no  prnuuplo.  Those  were  tlw  chii-f  reasons  which  had  Icil  to  its  rejcit  ion 
liy  the  Senates"  and  Mr.  Motley  added  "that  uIIInMi^'h  f'ley  had  not  lieeii  at  once  and 
cxidicitly  stated,  no  disconitesy  to  Her  Mnjesly's  (ioveiiiineiit  was  thereby  intended." 
On  the  y.'ith  of  September,  ISOD,  Mr.  i'ish  revived  the  whole  subject  of  tht!  coniio- 
vi'isit's  between  tlit^  two  (iovernnuMits  within  its  widest  ran;;e  in  a  Ion;;  and  elaborate 
dispatch  t»»  Mr.  ^lotley,  in  which  he  referred  (amonjr  otherthin;;s)  to  thtMesiKnisiiiility 
iif  the  IJritish  (Government  for  (at  least )  "  <tll  tlif  dijinddlioiis  <iimiiiilliil  bi/  the  '.thibdind  '  " 
lis  imlispntable.  lie  stated,  toward  the  «,'nd,  tho  I'resideiit's  concurrence  with  the 
Si  iiati!  in  disH|i])i'(>vinii;  the  (Convention  of  the  1  lt!i  .lannary,  IHdl*,  ihinUin^  (in  addi- 
tiiiii  to^^eni-ral  reasons  left  to  be  inferred  from  the  ;;eiieral  ar;;iiments  of  the  dispatch) 
that  "  the  provisions  of  the  (Convention  wcw  inadeiiuate  to  provide,  reparation  tor  the 
I'liited  States  in  the  manner  and  to  the  decree  to  which  he  considers  the  rnited  .Slates 
iiititled  to  redress."  He  added:  "Tile  President  is  not  yet  prepared  to  pronounce  on 
the  <|uestion  of  the  indemnitu-s  which  he  thinks  due  by  (>reat  liritain  to  individiijil 
oitiztMis  of  the  United  States  for  tho  destruction  of  tluur  jtroperty  by  rebel  cruisers 
lifted  out  in  the  ports  of  Great  IJritain,  Xor  is  he  now  /nrpaird  ta  upeak  of  the  ripnni- 
tloii  which  he  thiiikx  due  by  Ihe  liritiith  (iocernment  for  the  larger  account  of  the  vaxl  national 
mjnries  it  has  inflicted  on  the  United  Stuten.  Xor  doex  he  attempt  now  to  mcaxnre  the  relatire 
(feel  of  the  variom  cauwn  of  injury  ;  an,  whether  by  untimely  recot/uilion  of  helUtjereiicy ; 
by  siifferintj  the  flttiuy  out  of  reliel  cruiscrx  ;  or  by  the  nupply  of  nhipx,  armn,  and  munitions 
of  war  to  the  Confederates  ;  or  otherwiw,  in  whatsoever  manner.  "  *  *  All  those  are 
subjects  of  future  consideration,  which,  when  the  tinu-.  for  action  shall  come,  the  Pres- 
iiknt  will  consider  with  sincere  an<l  earnest  desire  that  all  diti'erences between  the  two 
iiatiouB  nuiy  ho  adjusted  amicably  and  compatibly  with  the  h(MU)r  of  each,  and  to  the 
future  promotion  of  concord  betwticn  them  ;  to  which  end  he  will  spare  no  efforts 
within  tho  ranj^e  of  his  suprcnw  duty  to  the  rij^hts  and  interests  of  tl  e  IJnited  States. 
'  *  '  At  tho  pio.sent  staye  of  the  controversy,  the  sole  objcsct  of  tlu!  President  is  to 
state  the  position  and  maintain  the  attitude  of  tin;  United  States  in  the  various  rela- 
timis  and  aspects  of  this  j^ravc-  controversy  with  (ireat  Ihitain.  It  is  the  obj(^et  of 
tills  paper  (which  you  an;  at  liberty  to  read  to  Lord  Clarendon)  to  state  calmly  and 
ilispassionatcly,  with  a  more  unmeasured  freedom  than  mi<;ht  biMised  in  one  addressed 
(liii'ctly  to  the  (Queen's  (Jovernmi'Ut,  what  this  (iovcrnuKMit  seriously  considers  the  in- 
juries it  has  siitferod.  It  is  not  written  in  ihe  nature  of  a  claim,  for  the  United  States  now 
miliv  no  demand  aijainst  Her  Mujesty^s  Gorernment  on  account  of  the  injuries  they  feel  they 
kvv  sustained." 

Lord  Clarendon,  undt^rstandinj^  this  dispatch  as  intended  to  revive,  ami  to  prepare 
tlio  way  for  a  new  settlement  of,  the  claims  previously  advaiu-ed,  spoke  of  it  in  his 
aiisweriii}^  dispatch  to  Mr.  Thornton  (November (!,  IHD'J)  as  "a  dispatch  from  Mr.  I'^ish 
0)1  Ihe  ^Alabama'  claims."  That  it  was  not  inteiuled  to  extend,  and  that  it  had  not  the 
ctfect  of  (!xtiMulin<5,  the  si<riiillcation  of  that  term,  as  used  in  the  previons  correspond- 
ciiii',  is  jdain,  (1)  tVom  the  fact  that  Mr.  Fish  expressly  disclaimed  for  his  dispatch 
the  oflico  or  effect  of  makinij  nny  xh'av  claim  w  demand ;  {'i)  that  it  reserved  for  fntnro 
consideration  the  (piestion  of  reparation  for  the  (supjiosed)  "  national  injinit^s"  inllicted 
liy  the  IJritish  Government  on  the  United  Stat«is ;  and  (:{)  that  it  "declined  to  measure 
the  relative  eftcct  of  tho  various  (alle;;ed)  causes  of  injury  ;"  the  "  sutferiiijf  the  littinj;- 
out  of  rcfbel  cruisers"  IxMiijr  only  one  of  three*  causes  enumerated.  Lord  Clarendon 
siiiiiily  contented  himself  with  rciilyin}>'  th. it  "  Her  Majesty's  (Jovernnient  could  not 
iniike  any  new  jiroposition,  or  run  the,  risk  of  another  unsuccc'ssfiil  ne;;-otiatioii,  until 
liii'y  had  inforunition  more  clear  than  that  which  was  contained  in  Mr.  i'ish's  dispatch 
respecting  the  basis  ni»on  which  the  (iovernmeiit  of  the  L'nitiMl  States  would  be  dis- 
pnscil  to  ncffotiate."  Ibit,  in  a  ])aper  of  observations  upon  the  arguments  in  this 
liispatch,  which  he  at  the  same  time  ((ith  November,  lf^()l>)  transmitted  to  Mr.  Thorn- 
tun,  to  be  communicated  to  Mr.  Fish,  he  remarked,  under  the  head  of  ••Indirect  injury 
U  American  commerce,"  "  This  ullcyulion  of  national,  indirect,  or  connlruclirc  claints  ww^  first 
h'ltiujhl  forward  officially  by  Mr.  liercrdy  Jiihuson,  in  his  attempt  to  rencir  nenoliatioiis  on 
thcVlunese  Convention  in  March  last.  Mr.  Thornton  has  shown  the  ditliciilty  there 
«i)m1(1  bi.'  in  compiitin<;  the  amount  of  the  claim,  even  if  it  were  ackuowleil<;<'d,  in  a 
ilispiiteh  in  which  he  mentions  the  continual  decrease  of  American  tonnajic.  This  is 
[liUtly,  no  doubt,  to  be  ascribed  to  the  disturbance  of  comnicriiial  relations  conscipient 
OH  a  li)ii{f  war,  ))artly  to  the  fact  that  many  vessels  were  nominally  transferred  to 
liritish  owners  durin<r  the  war  to  escape  capture.  #  #  #  «  j^  ^^^^^^  how- 
fvi;r,  a  i^ood  deal  of  it  to  be  attributed  to  the  high  American  tavill',  which  makes  the 
iiiiistriictiou  of  vtissels  in  American  ports  more  exi)ensivo  than  shi[)-l)nildin<r  in  Eiio-- 
l^liiiul,  and  has  thereby  thrown  so  large  a  proportion  of  the  carrying  trade  into  Eiiglisli 
Iwiuls  ?  There  must  be  some  such  cause  for  it,  or  otherwise  American  shipi)ing  would 
have  recovered  its  position  since  the  war,  instead  of  continuing  to  fall  ott  "  *  » 
*  *  And  with  reganl  to"//ic  claims  for  vast  national  injuries,"  hb  noticed 
tliat  Profes.sor  Woolsey,  tho  eminent  American  jurist,  had  repudiated  thoiu  as  uu- 
t«niible,  »&c. 
This  closes  the  narrative  of  the  comniuuiciitions  betwoeu  the  two  Governmouts,  au- 


4r»i 


TIM:\'I'V    OV    W.\SIII\(;T(>\. 


Iiiinr  III  fliu-c  wilit  Ii  Ii.mI  I'lir  (liiir  iiiiiiirili;itc  icsiill.  tlic  iii';;nti!iti(iiMir  llic  Trc;il  v  ol' 


^\ 


lij'Nill. 


'II 


ley  ^liiiw  ciiiiiliiNiM  1\  :  ( 1 )  lli.'it,  flown   to  the  -Jdlli  of  .liiiiiiiiiv,  |-7|, 


(wlicii  llcr  Mii.ji'Ht.v's  (iiixmiiiii'iit,  (liinii^fli  Sir  1',. 'I'liiniiloii,  |irn|M>si'(l  In  Mr.  I'i-li  tl 


i|i|iiii 


iliiii'iif  III'  ii  Jiiiiit  lliuii  ( 'mill 


III  srtllc  tilt"  I'isjii'iv  <,)lli'sti()ll,  :i||il  ill!  nf 


'>!  inns  mH'iti  iliL-'  "  llli'  l(l;il  ioiiM  III'  till'  1  'liilril  Sli!i'-*  tnwiilil  !lrlM:iir'.l,\  's  |ii(s-<c 


ii'l' 

«|III|S 


ill  .XmiiIi  Alllflii'll,")  l\n  iirliltd  ildiiil  llllil    liicll   riUlllllliltcil  iir  linl  i  liiil  iill  lllr  |iiirt    111'  I 

1  'iiiliil  Sliitrs  ii^iiiiisl  llcr  .M:ijr,sly's  ( iiisfi  iiiiiriil,  I'Xi'i'iil  fur  1  lie  r,i)il  mi'  nr  ili  --Iriiitiiiii 
III'  jiKijiri  ly  III'  iii(ii\  iiliiiil  liii/i'iis  iil'  llii'  I'liilcd  Sliiirs  liv  I  In- "Aliiliaiiiii,"  iiiid  utliir 
siiiiil.ir  vusm'In;  {\i)  lliiit  tin-  ( iii\(  riiiiiriil  nf  Ilic  I'liili'il  Sl;itf.s  li:iil,  in  Mr,  ri,li'> 
(lis|i;it(li  i\  till'  "i'ltli  III' Sept  iiiilii'i-,  Ifli'.l,  fur  tin'  lirst  tinii'  iniiniiilril  In  I  in-  (Invcnnniiit 
III' liiis  coiiiitry  lli.'it  tlicy  cniisidcri'il  ihcri'  inivJil  I"' j;rnuii'lH  for  smnc  ilniins  dI'm  liii'.;i'r 
ami  iMiiri'  inililic  iiatiirr,  tlinii!;li  llii'y  |iiir|insi'ly  alistaiiii'il  at  lliat  tiiin-  i'nnn  lllMl^ill;;' 
tlii'in:  (li)  tliat  till'  ^rnniids  indirati'd,  as  tlinsc  mi  wlilrli  any  siicli  lar;;('r  and  iikhc 
)iiililii'  claims  iiii<;Iil  lu'  inadi*,  wi-rc  not  limili'd  to  tin-  ai-ls  of  llir  AlaUama  and  ntln'r 
similar  vrsscls.  or  In  any  nifii'  rmisi'iiiii'ncc  of  llmsi'  ai'ts;  and  (l)  lliat  tin-  i-xjircf-siiiii 
'•//((  '.UiiIkiiiui'  fhiiiiix"  had  always  Item  nsi'd.  in  llir  rorri'siimidi'iicc  iM'twci-n  the  two 
fJo\  rridiifiils,  to  dc'sciilii'  tlir  cliiinis  of  Annrii-an  citi/.i'iis  on  accoiint  of  tlii'ir  own  di- 


ri'it  llls^^^  l>y  t  ill' drjiii'dal  ions  of  llic  Alaliaina  "and  other  similar  vi- 


and hi 


nrM-r  liri'ii  i'ni|ilo\i'd  to  di'M'rilir,  or  as  rom|iridirmli 
ilialr\rr  of  liic  (ioM'riiimnl  of  ihr  rnilid  Statf: 


my  jnildic  or  mil  ional 


It  was  iindir  tlnsc  ciiiiimsiaiicrs  thai  Mr.  l'i,-.li,  on  llii'  IKMli  id' .lannary.  l-Tl,  in- 
form rd  Sir  1',,  Thorn  ton  ihal  Ihr  I'ii'sidi'iil  tlmii^ihl  "that  I  hr  rrmo\  al  of  Ihr  dillciiniis 
■whirh  arosi'  diirin;;-  tin-  irlu'llion  in  llii'  I  iiili'd  Slairs,  and  whii  h  has  I'xistiil  siiii  r 
I  hi'ii.  i/roiriiiii  mil  nf  llicitils  cininnilli  d  In/  llii  .v(  (v  ;•«/  jv  ■'>•''<■/••'■,  ii'IikIi  IiikI  i/'inn  rixr  In  Ilic  iln 


i/i  III rirdllji  l.iiiiini  iiH  III!'  '.Iliiliiiiiiii'  cliiiiiiK,  would 


llso   he  rssi'l 


ilial   to  ihi'  ri'stmali.iii  (if 


cordial   and   ami 

jdii'd  (1st  l'"ilirmiry.  HTI)  that  lie 


cahlf  iidalions   hctwci'ii  the  two  (JoviMiimcnls.''     Sir  1".. 'riioriitmi  ri'- 
wa>  aiitliori/cd  l>v  I'larl  (iranvillc  to  state  tlial  ••it 


wonld  ^i\i'  iiir  Maji'sl  v's  (ioMinmcnt   urcat  satisfaction  if  llii' I'h 


llllllH  riiinuiiili 


hi  In 


hji  llir  iiiiiiK  of'  III!  •.lliiluiiiKi'  rliiiiiis  wi'vv  siilimittcd  to   the.  consideration  of  the  saiiu' 


J  liuli  ( 'omii 


II,  Iiy  w  hi(  li  Her  .Majesty's  (i 


nnieni  had  ]no])osed  tliat  the  i|iii'sli 


rel.'iiin^;-  lo  r.rilisli  possosimis  in  -\mih  America  should  lie  diseib.sed.  i>rovided  tlml  all 
(illii  r  ( Id'niis,  liiilli  (if  I'liil'iKli  siihjiih  (iiid  rili:ciit:  if  llir  rnilnl  iS/d/*  v.  aiisini;  onl  of  iii'ls 
commilled  dniini;-  the  recent   ci\il  war  in  thi>   coii'ilr.v,  were  .s/)i(i/(n7// refened  to  tlir 


.sann-  Ciimmissimi."     .Mr.  Fish,  in 


IIIISWC 


o  I  his  I'li'iminceineiil ,  on  the 


1-7  1,  alier  citin"  ll 


le  exact  terms  ol 


Si;'  K.  Tl 


101  nion  s  lei  ler,  cxpl  essi 


d  tin 


of  I'elii nary, 
.alisl'ariiiiii 


d  received  the  iiileHiueiiec  that    I'larl  (iranville  had 


aa- 


vith  w  hich  I  he  I'icsideni  '•  ha 
Ihori/ed  him  to  slate  Ihal  Her  Majesty's  ( .oveiiimcnt  had  .accepted  the  views  of  tlie 
rnited  Stales  ( iovernmeiit  as  to  the  dis|iosition  in  ]t{-  \nnt\i'  lA'  lliv  xo-callcd  ^.Ihiliiiniii' 
cliiiiiix;"  and  that  "if  there  lieothei-and  I'arl  her  claimso/' /«'///,•«// .-((//i/cc/.s  or  i;/' .  Iiu'c'rrr'i 
(:ili:tiix  urowine  out  of  acts  emiimilted  diiiiiiy'  the  recent  civil  war  In  this  coiintiy,  lif 
assents  to  the  iiroinicly  of  their  reference  to  the  same  Hiiih  Commission." 


.Mr.  l''isli,  therefore,  and  Sir  K.  Thornton  iiL;ieed  in  desciihin 
of  c\|iri'ssimi,  "  Ilic  cluiins  iji  m  rivitllii  kiinirii  iix  llir  '.llnliiiiiiir  ilni 


\>\  the  sever: 


liirms 


/,/ 


till    llir    iniiiir  of'   llir  '.llaliiiiiiii'  rl/i 


'.  [IiiIhiiiiu  '  villi  111.1,"  one 


'  "  //(('  rliiiiiix  viniiiiiiiiilii 
'llir  •Jliihiniiii^  c/«/'/ii.s,'' and  " //(('  so-mUnl 
d  the  same  siiltject-mal  ler.  What  this  was  is  ]irovi'il.  imt 
<nily  liv  the  ]iievimis  use  of  the  same  oi'  similar  terms,  Init  aNo  liythei'aet  lliat.il 
these  woi'ds  had  lieeii  now  inieiided  lo  include  iiidelinite  |mldic  or  iialimial  elaiias  n| 
till'  riiilcd  Slates  (io\ernmeiit  against  (Jieat    Urilaiii,  and  not  merelv  lliose  claims  fur 


direct  losses  which  had  heeii  ]irevioiisly  iiresciited  or   notilied,  and  any  others  ijuxii 


f/riinis,  it  must  of  necessity  have   followed  (accoidinjf  to  the   snnf;estions  w 


hich 


Jn,i 
hail 


been  made  hv  ISIr.  IJeverdv  .lohnson,  and 


ftcrwjird  by  Mr.  Motley)  that  any  coiiiiti'i 


claims  which  the  <!ovcrnmcnt  of  (ireat  IJritain  miuht  have  thoimht  lit  to  advance, mi 


]mlilic  or  national  uroniids. 


ist  tlu^  (ioxeri 


lit  of  th(^  United  Stales,  mils 


t  liavi 


bi'cn  in  like  manner  |iio\ided  for.     lint   I  he  only  other  claims  }>ro\ided  for  were  tl 
1)1'  snlijccls  of  (ileal  lliilaiii  and  cili/eiisof  the  rnited  States. 


In  si  rict  confminil  \  with,  I  his  view.  l,ord  (iran\  11 


■hen  eiinmeratinii-  in  his  instiin' 


tion 


Her   Majest.\"s    lli^h   ('ommissiiiiier.s  (IMli   I'ebriiary,  1>71 )  'he   prine 


ipa 


1  >iili- 


Jed  s  to  w  hie'    their  at  ten  I  ion  w  onld  be  dii  ecleil,  deseiibed  these  claims  as  "  t  he  claiiii'^ 


count  of  the   Alabama,  Shemindoah.  and   certain   other  eriii:- 


on  ai 
(olifederaleSliltcs: 


I  'iider  1  his  head  are  comprised  the  (d: 


of   the   sii-stvlca 
a-ainsi  (;:v»i 


Ibilain  I'm  daiiiaj;es  snslained  by  the   depred.il  ions  of  the  Alab.aimi,  Slieiiaiiihiah,  ana 


liCOli;ia, 


the  vessels  which  were  I'nrnislied   on    account  of  flic  Confederate  Slali 


iinncd  outside  of  Ibitish  Jmisdietion,  and  tlie  I'^lorida,  which,  though  built  in  Eii,;;laiiil, 
■was  armed  ;ind  e(|iiipped  in  I  he  ]iort  of  .Mobile." 

The  same,  or  the  c(|iiivalcnt  words,  therefore,  as  often  as  they  are  used  in  the  I'ro- 
tocois  of  the  Commissioni'is  and  in  tlie  'i'reaty  of  Washin.nlon  itsclt",  oiinlit,  upon  oi'di- 
nary  )ii  i  nci  pies  of  const  riic  lion,  to  be  iiii  deist  ood  as  beariiii;'  the  same  sense.  And  tlii^ 
seems  to  be  made  mole  clear  by  t  he  exclusion  I'roin  1  lii^  referenee  ol'  any  claims  nf  tlii'- 
cminlry  or  of  the  people  of  Canada  on  account  ol'  the  iiroccedines  of  the  Fi'iiiaiis  in 
tlie  I  iiited  States.    Tlicie  niiyht  ceituinly  liavo  been  national  claims  of  Great  IJrilain 


('<)in;r,sp(>\i»i:x('K  lM:8IM:("rI^(^  (jenkva  AKr.iTUAriox.    455 


iiri>iiiu;  (lilt  111'  Ihiisi'    inocccdii'Ms,  (in  ;i(li!iliipn    tu  ;niy   iiarl  ii'iiliir  losses   liy  ('Miiiiili.in 

s||liiicl>,  )  w  liicli  ciilllil  111)1    |iil-    iMy   IllISC  111'. Ml  cSrlllili'd  nil  any  jilsl  or  inlrlli'^ililr  plill- 

ri|>li',  11'  inilrlinilr  cliilnis  I'nr  imlilic  ni'  inilinniil  Ihnm's  liml  lircn  intcniU'il  li>  li<-  li'l'  (ipcii 

t(i  the  (Jii\  iiiiinilll   nrilii"   I'lliliil  Stlltrs, 

Oil  :i  <Miiliil  csaiiiiiiiitinii  (if  llic  liin;in;i;;i'  nt'  tln'  riotdciils  iiiiil  llir  I'lialy,  iintliiiij; 
is  r.  11111(1  a  I  \  Jiiiaiicr  wldi  (his  con  ell  i-.i  I  111,  w  liilr  \  cry  ninrli  is  In  in  id  t.i  conrniii  it. 

'I'll!'  oiilli  I'l'iilocol,  drawn  np  allcr  llic  Coininissioni'is  Inid  agreed  ii|miii  all  llic  tcinis 
III'  the  'I'l'aty,  t'oi'  tlic  piii|iiisc  (iC  iccoiiliiiji  (>'i>  I'ai'  as  ilicy  llioin^lit  il  nccosary  or  dc- 
>iialilf)  till'  liisloiy  ol'  llii'ir  prdcccdinns,  lici^iiis  liy  slaliiiy,-  lln^  iirnccidiiijis  at  tlu'ir 
lii.sl  conl'dcncc.  on  \\w  ^\\t  Manli.  I~T  I.  On  llial  ociiision  tlic  Aininican  ('oininis- 
siiiiii'is  spidvc  (4)  of  llic  I'cclin;;-  of  llir  riiitcd  Stales,  "  lliat  llh'y  liiid  Misiaincd  a  ^icat 
wroiii;,  and  lliat;;rcat  injiii  ics  and  looses  vvcic  inlliclcd  np(ni  llicir  coniincicc  and  llicir 
iiialcrial  iiilci'csts  /<//  llic  ronrsr  diiil  coiiiliici  <;/'  (lical  lUiliiin  iliiriiii/  llii  nviiil  rilullioii  in 
llir  I'liiliil  Shiiif ;"  CJ)  ()/■  "  //((■  hinlitrii  <;/'  Ihf  .lliiliiiiiiii  iiiiil  iilliir  (■nli■^^(r.^^,  wliicli  liad  liccii 
lilted  (lilt,  or  anncd,  oi'  c(|nipped,  or  wliicli  liad  received  an<;inciilatiiin  of  lorec  in 
Ureal  III  itain  (M' in  Inr  Colnnies,  «»</ <;/'  lhi(>)ii  nilioitx  af  llio^i  rfsuds,  ns  nlKiirinii  {\)  r.r- 
liiinifc  iliiiil  liisuci  ill  llir  I'li/iliin  mill  ili slnirlliiii  nf  n  luriir  iiiiinhn'  i;/' /•(•^^77^  irllli  lluir  mr- 
ijoix,  mill  ill  llir  liiiifji  iiiilioiiiil  i.iiiiiiililiui  ill  llir  iHirxiiil  III'  Ihr  i  r  II  i  m  !■■< ;  mnl  {\\)  iinliirit 
iiijiirij  ill  llir  Irminftr  of  11  luri/r  /tiirl  a/  Ihr  Aiiiiriniii  i  iniiini  rriiil  miiriiif  li<  Ihr  I'liili^h  lUiij. 
ill  Ihr  riihiniri il  i>iiiiiiiiiiln  of  iiisiirmii'r,  in  llir  jivdIdiiijiiHoii  of  llii  iriir,  mid  in  llir  iiilililion  of 
a  liiri/i  Kiiiii  III  III!  riisl  of  Ihr  iritr  mul  Ihr  siipiirrsyion.  of  llir  rrlx  llioii  ;  iind  as  aUo  show  inij; 
iC)  Ilia  I  (in  at  iirilain,  Ity  icasoii  ol'  lailnrc  in  ine  pi-oper  oliseiviinec  ol  lier  diilies  jis  ii 
iit'iilral.  /("(/  hiTiniic  jnxllji  liiihir  for  Ihr  iirls  of  thnur  crninrrn  mid  Ihrir  Iriiilrrn."  So  far  all 
is  preaniMe.  and  as  ycl  there  h  no  mention  at' rliiims.  (ieiienil  injury  lo  tlie  cnninierec 
mill  niiilcrial  inlercslsot' Hie  I'nited  .Stales,  "  h;/  Ihr  •oiirnr  mid  roiiilnrl  of  I  inn  I  />;  Kiu'i/,'' 
liiiTrl  Uinsrs  liy  llie.  riiiiliiriK  nl'  t in^  "  iMalianiii "  and  similar  crnisers,  and  also  (;iii  item 
iiiiw  lirst  added)  Ini  llir  iiitlioiinl  rxpviidiliirr  in  Ihrir  iiiivmiil ;  and  indiieet  pnlilic  injury, 
"show  II  liy  the  history  of  ihosi^  vessels  and  I  heir  opcial  ions,"  arc  all  •■poken  e!  ;  lint 
till  '•/.'*(/'////(/,"  expressly  inlcired  from  llic  sanni  "history"  a^^aiiist,  (licat  i  ritaiih  is 
li.a'icd  lo  ••  Ihr  arls  of  llioi^r  n.-srls  mnl  llnir  luiilirK," 

'1  lie  Anierican  Commissioneis  then  pidceed  to  speak  of  '•///(  cliiinr:  I'm'  the  1  iss 
iiiid  (lest  I'Uel  ion  of  ]irivate  jn  '  .  r'y  iihiili  laid  tluis  J'ttr  Inrii  jirinrnlid."  as  anionnli"t;' 
tiialionl  1  I. liiiii, (1(1(1  dollars,  withoni  interest,  '•which  amoiinl  was  lialilc  to  In-  /.really 
iiureascd  liy  elainis  w)m''1i  had  mil  yet  Itciii  preseiired  ;"  and,  w  ilh  respect  I  i  tin  new 
liiiid  ol'  direct  los.^es,  now  lor  the  liist  time  mentioned,  they  saytlnil  "ilie  cost  to 
wliieh  the  (iovernment  had  lieen  pill  in  iiiii'.-uiit  ol'  cruisers  (toiild  easily  he  aseeitajm d 
liy  ccrtitiealcs  of  ( iovcrnment  jieeoiinl  inj;'  ol'licers."  licre  Iho  word  "  (Iniiiif"  i.^  used 
with  respect  to  direct  losses  (iniy,as  il  had  always  hccii  used  bel'orc,  lint  with  iioliee 
lliiil  direct  losses  ol  the  (iovernment.  in  ]iiirsiiit  of  the  vessels  rel'rrrcd  to,  , 'ire  now 
nil  Mill  to  he  inclnded  in  thai  ealctiory.  as  well  as  the  losses  of  pvivate  cili/.ens.  And 
lliiii  I'ollnw  the  words  :  "  'J'hat,  in  the  Iio)ie  of  an  amifaldc  setlh  iiient.  no  ( ;-l  iniale  was 
iiKiile  of  I  he  indirecl  losses,  wit  lion  t  pi  I  j  lid  ice,  how  evi  r.  to  t  he  1  ij;lit  ol  indemnilieatioii 
nil  their  accoiinl,  in  I  he  event  of  no  such  settlement  liiin;;,  iiiadc." 

Here  is  a  char  waiver  ol'  (he  (assumed)  ■•ri;;hl  ol  imlemiiilication"  for  imlin  ct  losses 
ill  the,  event  ol  •'  an  amicalile  set  i lenient"  liriiin-  made.  The  meaning-  ol'  the  w nids  ••  an 
innicahle  sell  lenient"  has  lieeii  already  eoiisidered  in  the  I'msI  I'art  of  this  .Meiiioian- 
iliiiii.  At  present  the  (|ncsti(in  is  as  to  the  meaniiin'  ol'  the  words  •' the  claims  ^cneri- 
lally  known  as  the,  •  Alahama'  claims."  If  no  actual  claim  I'ortliesc  indirecl  losses  had 
liceii  previously  made,  it  (dearly  was  not  made  now  liy  treatinj;  it  as  a  reserved  "  ri;;ht '' 
wliicli  would  or  niijiht  he  insisted  on  in  the  event  of  no  iimiciilili.'  settlement  hein-^ 
iiriived  lit.  Still  le.ss  could  it,  hy  means  of  any  siicli  reservation.  In;  liroii;,f|il  \\  itliiii 
ilii'  ciiti'iiory  of  "claims"  already  "  j;eiieiic;illy  known  as  the,  '  Alaliama'  chdms." 

'file  next,  step  in  till'  jiroceedin^s  coi'roliorates  this  view.  For,  after  statin;;;  their 
desire  for  an  expression  of  i'ei;ret  on  the  part  of  Her  Majesty's  (ioveinmriit.  wliiidi 
tliey  (lilt allied,  the  American  Commissioners  then  proposed  •■  that  the  .Ini nt  lliuli  Coni- 
niissioiiers  should  auree  n|iiiii  a  sum  which  shoiild  he  jiaid  hy  (ireat  Ihilain  to  the 
I'nited  .sltates,  (';/  xnlisfnrrniii  of  nil  Ihr  rlniiiin,  and  the  interest  thereon."  All  Ihr  r!(uinn 
;iiv  here  spoken  of;  lint  it  can  hardly  he  possilde  that,  in  this  ]iroposal,  they  meant  to 
iiifhide  indirecl  1  os.se s  ;  lieeaiise  "  the  rii;lit  to  iiideiiiiiilieatinn"  on  that  aeeoiint  was 
iiiily  to  he  asserted  in  the-  event  of  no  amieahle  settlement  lieiiin'  made;  nor  were 
lliese  indelinile  elainis  siiidi  as,  hy  any  possihility,  (•ould  he  re)j;;irded  as  heariii;;' inte.test. 

Ill  Hi(^  later  iiass,in-es  of  this  J'rotdcol,  wliieh  rtdate  to  Hk;  iir(K;eedin;;'s  resnltin;;' in 
tile  reference  to  Arhitration,  and  in  tlu^  agreement  as  to  tlio  three  "  Utiles,"  no  trace 
"teiiis  of  any  recnrreiujo  to  llu^  rtiserved  "rij>ht  of  imhiinnilication,"  or  to  the  snhjeiit 
111'  indirect  los.ses.     "  The  '  AInlimnn''  rlninm"  alone  :ivi'  s|ioken  ol'. 

In  the  1st  Artieln  of  the  Treaty  itsidf,  tho  words  "  iirnrrirnlUj  known,"  A.('.,  so  far  iiH 
'liiy  dilVer  from  other  forms  of  exjiression  previously  used  in  respect  of  the  same  siil)j 
.ii'il.  (lilfer  only  by  delining  that  siilijict  with  greater  aeuiuaity,  so  as  more  [niinledly 
tiiexelmle  indirect  losses. 

"Ueuei  ically  "  is  an  lulveib  of  clas.sllication,  with  reforouco  to  thu  nature  of  the  siih- 


Ski 


456 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON. 


:4 


.ject-niattor  itsolf.  Claiiiis  for  direct  losses,  by  Mie  acts  of  a  particular  class  of  vessels 
or  by  a  (Iclinite  expenditure  for  tlie  itreveiitioti  of  these  acts,  are,  in  tlicir  nature,  (if  tin' 
8uin«>,  calfju'ory  or  {^enus ;  and  it  is  the  very  fact  of  their  btMiifj  cajiable  of  beiti<>'  diicctlv 
coiine(;teil  with  the  acts  of  tliose  vesstds,  as  an  efftuit  with  its  cause,  wlTudi  makes  tliciii 
8<>.  In<lir<!ct  public  losses,  to  \vlii(!li  many  concnrrent  causes  may  havt^  contiiltutcd  (us, 
with  res))ect  to  those  now  in  (juestion,  is  clearly  d(Mnonstriited  by  Mr.  Sumner's  Niictcli, 
and  Mv.  Tliornton's  observations  uikui  it,  and  i'lso  by  Lord  Clarendon's  menioiiuKhiui 
of  the  (ith  Nov«Mnber,  1H(><),)  are  different  in  t!;'  ir  kind,  aud  open  up  much  wider,  and 
■wholly  different,  fields  of  incpiiry. 

The  Vllrh  and  Xth  Articles  of  the  Treaty  a)»pear  also  to  bo  irreconcilable  witli  any 
other  view  of  tlie"  Claims"  referred.  The  Arbitrators  arc  to  "first  determine,  ((x /(» 
each  vcHncl  wparatvUj,  whether  Great  Ibitain  lias,  by  any  act  or  omhmni,  failed  to  fnllill  any 
of  th»r  duties,"  &,c. ;  and  "  shall  vcrlifi/  the,  fart  nn  to  each  of  the  naid  rcnneln.^'  Tiiis  iu- 
(piiry  is  addressed,  and  is  limited,  to  (Mutain  imputed  "  acts  or  omissions  "  of  tliis  coun- 
try, not  as  to  any  other  matters,  Init  as  to  each,  acparafely,  of  certain  vessels.  The 
Arbitrators,  if  tliey  should  find  "  that  Great  Britain  has  failed  to  fulfill  any  duty  or 
duties  m  aforemid,"  have  power  to  "award  a  mtm  in  groan  to  he  paid  by  Great  ]3ritaiu  to  the 
United  States /or  all  the  claima  referred."  But  the  power  of  awarding  a  sum  in  jfross 
cannot  enlar<!;e  or  alter  the  category  of  the  claims  referred,  or  the  scope  of  the  in- 
quiry ;  the  foundation  of  such  an  award  must  be  some  particular  failure  of  duty,  con- 
sidered by  thti  Arbitrators  to  have  been  established  against  Great  Britain,  by  some  acts 
or  omissions  as  to  some  particular  vessels  or  vessel ;  aud  the  sum  awarded  can  only  bo 
in  resptict  of  damages  resulting  from  such  failure  of  duty,  as  to  such  particular  ves- 
sels or  vessel.  If  the  Arbitrators  should  "  find  tl  n^  Great  Britain  has  failed  to  i'altill 
any  duty  or  duties  an  aforeaaid,"  hut  do  not  award  .:  sum  in  gross,  a  Board  of  Assessors 
is  then  "  to  as(>ertain  aud  determine  what  claims  nn  valid  and  what  amount  or  amounts 
shall  be  paid  by  Great  Britain  to  the  United  States,  on  account  of  the  liability  nriniiiy 
from  sKch  failure  as  to  each  vessel,  according  to  the  extent  of  such  liability  as  decided  hy 
the  Arbitrators."  It  seems  impossible  that  )H>wer  can  li.ave  been  given  to  the  Arbi- 
trators to  awaid  a  sum  in  gross  for  claims  not  severable  as  to  I'ach  vessel,  and  whicli, 
therefore.  The  Assessors,  when  dealing  with  the  case  of  each  vessel  in  detail,  could  not 
entertain  or  allow. 

II.  The  second  question,  viz,  what  vessels  are  described  by  the  words  "  the  scrcral 
vessels  which  have  given  rise  to  the  claims  generically  kuowu  as  the  '  Alabama  claims,' '' 
atlmits  of  being  more  concisely  treated. 

Until  Mr.  Seward's  dispatch  to  Lord  Stanley,  of  the  27th  August,  l^fUi,  the  ''Ala- 
bama," "Florida,"  "Georgia,"  and  "  Shenandoah"  were  the  only  particular  vessels  in 
respect  of  whose  acts  any  claims  had  been  made.  With  respect  to  mort>  general  com- 
])laints  of  the  same  character,  Mr.  Adams,  in  his  letter  to  Lord  Russell  of  the/lli  A|>nl, 
18():5,  referred  only  to  vessels  '*  supplied  from  the  ports  of  the  United  Knujdom'^  adilinj^, 
"  So  far  as  I  am  aware,  not  a  sini;ie  vessel  has  been  engaged  in  these  dejiredations  cx- 
ce]>ting  such  as  have  been  so  furnished.  Unless,  indeed,  I  might  except  on<^  oi'  two 
passiMigcr  steamers  belonging  to  jn'i'sons  in  New  York,  forcibly  taken  jxjssession  of 
■while  at  Charleston  in  the  begiiming  of  the  war,  feebly  arnu'd,  jind  very  quickly  ren- 
dered useless  for  any  aggressive  ])urpose."'  In  his  letter  of  the  "JOth  May.  IHCi.").  wlica 
recaitilnlating  his  former  conqilaints,  he  mentioned  under  this  head,  only  ^' the  is^ur 
from  Jlritish  ports  of  a  nnml)er  of  British  vessels,"  by  which  a  lai'ge  amount  of  Ameri- 
can property  had  been  destroyed;  thcaclion  of  these  llritifih  hiiilt,  inatmed,  and  armtdns- 
sc/«  ;  the  ravages  committed  by  armed  s,t\r.mu'\H,  fitted  out  from  the  ports  of  (Ireal  Urit- 
ain  ;"and  "  the  issue  of  all  the  depredalhiij  resaels  j'rom  lirilish  ports  n-'ilh  liritish  sivmoi. 
and  n-ilh.  in  all  res2}eets  bui  the  presence  of  a  few  men  acting  as  officers,  a  purely  Brilixh 
character." 

Mr.  Seward,  in  his  disi)atch  of  the  i»7tli  August,  180(i,  (as  has  been  already  seen.) 
s])ok<Mit'  "depi'edations  ujuju  our  comnierciai  marine,  committed  by  the  'Snniter,' tlie 
'Alabama,'  the  'Fbu'ida,'  the  'fi\\ci\ani\oi\\\,'  diid  other  ships  of  irar,  irhich  u-erehuilt,  m<(iiiiid, 
armed,  iipiippcd.  and  Jilted  out  in  Hrilish  ports,  aud  dispatched  therefrom  by  or  throiiiili  the 
cijeney  of 'Urilish snl>ieets,  and  which  M'ei'e  Inirbored,  shidtered,  provided,  and  fnniislied, 
as  occasion  reijuired,  during  their  devastating  career,  in  ports  of  the  realm,  or  in  ports 
of  Brilifh  Colonies  in  nearly  all  parts  of  tin*  globe." 

As  the  "Sumter"  was  (notoriously)  not  built,  manned,  arnu'd,  ecjnipped,  or  titti'(l  out 
in  any  lb-it ish  ]>(U't,  or  dispatched  thiu'efrom  by  or  through  the  agency  of  any  British 
subjects,  Lord  Stai\ley  tliought  that  this  was  a  casual  and  nnint(Mitional  error,  and 
poiiited  it  out  to  Mr.  Seward  (through  Sir  V.  Bruce)  as  su(di ;  especially  as  tin*  "  Georgia," 
in  respect  of  which  vessel  particular  claims  were  scheduled  to  Mr,  Si'ward's  dispatch, 
■was  not  named  therein;  while  no  such  claims  were  scheduled  in  n^spect  nf  the 
"Sumt'r"  <M' of  any  other  ships,  except  the  "Alabaimi,"  "Shenandoah,"  "<ieoru;iM," 
flinl  "  Florida."  Mr.  Seward,  as  has  been  already  seen,  justified  himstdf  (I'Jth  .lanuar.v, 
IHtu)  as  "substantially  correct,"  on  the  ground  that  the  " Sumter'"  had  received  certaiu 
hospitalities  in  the  British  ports  of  Trinidad  and  Gibraltar,  aud  had  been  soUl  to  iliitisU 
subjects  at  Gibraltar  aud  afterwurd  received  at  Liverpool. 


lass  of  vosspIs, 
natiirt',  (it'tlic 
l»i'iii<>'  tlircctly 
^h  luaUcs  tlicm 
>ntiil»iit(Ml  (as, 
nim'.r's  hjicim'!!, 
incniiii'aiKluni 
u'h  wider,  and 

\iihh'.  with  any 
k^ttiriiiiiic,  IIS  III 
i-a  tolullillaiiy 
leh.'"     Tills  iii- 
i"  of  tliiscmiu- 
II  vessels.    The 
ill  any  duly  or 
it  liritain  to  the 
a  sum  in  j^ross 
copo  of  the  in- 
•e  of  duty,  con-  ' 
in,  by  some  acts 
lied  can  oidy  bo 
1  ]»articular  ves- 
i  failed  to  fallill 
iird  of  Assessors 
unt  or  amounts 
?  UabiUtji  nrhiiiii 
f,y  as  deeiiled  by 
en  to  tht!  Arhi- 
ssel,  and  whicli, 
iletail,  could  not 

>rds  "  '/*('  Kirmtl 
al)anni  clanns,'"' 

18()(;,  the  ''  Ala- 

icular  vessels  in 

re  i>'i'neral  eoni- 

of'the/tli  Ainil, 

(/(/(»(»."  addinj;, 

']>reilations  ex- 

'pl   one  or  two 

I  possession  ot 
ry  (juiekly  reu- 

liy,  l.-^ti'i.  when 

only   "  till'  issiii' 

lonnt  of  Anieri- 

(1,  iiikI  iiniiiil  ris- 

n  ()/  (Iriiil  Hi'il- 

liritixh  Knimcii. 
a  purely  llntixli 

n  already  seen.) 
le  •  Slimier,'  the 
")•(■  liiiill,  mdiniid, 
hi)  or  tliroiuih  thi- 
and  fiiniislied, 
•aim,  or  in  ports 

)ed,  or  fitted  out 
,•  of  any  Mritish 
oiial  error,  and 

the  '' tieorjiia," 
vard's  dispatch, 

res\teet  of  the 
ih,"  "(leor.uia," 
f(l2th.JaiuiMry, 
received  certain 

II  sold  to  Ihitish 


CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION.      457 

As  this  was  the  first  occasion,  so  it  was  .also  the  last,  on  which  mention  was  mado  of 
any  ship  or  shii)s,  not  allofjed  to  have  Ixieii  titted  out,  armed,  e(| nipped,  or  manned  in 
any  Hritisij  port,  but  which  had  merely  been  allowcul  to  receive  limited  sniiplies  of  coal 
or  other  necessaries  in  IJritish  wate-rs,  as  cominjr  within  the  catejjory  of  vessels  whoso 
acts  could  be  made  the  foundation  of  (duims  aj^ainst  CJreat  Hritain.  The  words  "tho 
vesstds  which  have  j^iven  rise  to  the  claims  jjiMicically  known  as  tho  Alabama  claims" 
cannot  possibly  be  extended  to  vesstds  of  this  character,  unless  it  be  on  tlie  jjronnd 
of  this  oiM^  mention  of  the  "Sumter"  iii  the  coutt^xt  which  has  been  cited  in  these  *two 
letters  of  Mr.  Seward.  In  the  "  Case,"  how(!Ver,  i>res»!nted  on  the  part  of  the  American 
Govenumjiit  under  the  Treaty,  (laniaj!;es  ar<'  claimed  in  n^spect  of  live  vessels  ("  Se.mter," 
"Nashville,"  "Retribution,"  "Tallaliassee,"  "Chi(  kanianj;a,")  which  weie  in  every 
sense  American  ;  and  which  are  not  allej^ed  to  have  biJtui  built,  fitted  out,  armed, 
t'lpiippitd,  or  manned  in  any  part  of  the  British  dominions;  and  in  ihc  7th  volumu 
of  the  Ai)pendix  to  that  "Case,"  farther  claims  of  the  like  characiter  appear  to  be  niado 
iu  respect  of  tho  acts  of  two  other  similar  vessels,  ("Boston"  and  "Sallie.") 

It  may  be  hero  observed  that,  by  th«  general  list  of  claims  filed  in  the  State  Depart- 
ment of  tho  United  States,  besides  these  vessels,  not  less  than  eight  other  American 
ships  ("Calhoun,"  "Echo,"  "Jett"  Davis,"  "Lapwing,"  "Savannah,"  "St.  Nicholas," 
"Winslow,"  "  York,")  in  respect  of  whose  acts  no  claim  is  now  made  against  Her 
Majesty's  (»ov(;rnment,  appear  to  have  been  also  engajn'-d  in  belligerent  naval  opera- 
tions on  the  i»art  of  tho  Confederate;  States,  wliich  resulted  in  the  destruction  of  ships 
aud  other  property  belonging  to  citizens  of  tho  United  States. 

When  Lord  Stanley  (24tli  May,  18()7)  spoke  of  "tho  proceedings  of  the  'Alabama' 
and  rcuHclH  of  that  clann,"  and  (10th  September,  18(57)  of  "  claims  arising  out  of  the  depre- 
dations of  tho  'Alabama,'"  and  "o/ressfi/s  of  the  like  character;"  when  Mr.  Reverdy 
Johnson  ('^rjth  March,  IHO'J)  spoke  of  the  possilde  public  claim  of  the  United  States 
Government,  as  resulting  (iH?tr  «/(«)  "from  the  Jitthig  out  of  the  ^ Alabama^  and  other 
similar  veHneh  in  Hir  Majeatifs  yortH,  and  from  /'(eir  perniitted  entranci;  into  other  ports;" 
when  Mr.  Fish  ('i'ltli  September,  18(1;))  spoke  of  the  destruction  of  American  commerco 
"  by  rebel  crimentfittedout  in  thcportsof  Great  Britain"  and  injury  "  by  xnjferiilij  the  fitting  on  t 
of  rebel  eriiixers,  or  by  thesnpply  of  Mpx,  arms,  and  munitions  of  war  to  tlie  Confederates ;" 
when  Mr.  Motley  ("ilUl  October,  18()!))  spoke  of"  the  destruction  of  American  commerce 
!»//  eriiiserti  of  lirilinh  origin  carrying  the  insurgent  fiag;"  it  is  clear  that  they  did  not  in- 
clude, or  mean  to  include,  as  if  belonging  to  one  and  the  same  category  of  vessels,  ships 
alleg(!d  to  be  of  British  origin,  and  ships  of  American  origin,  with  the  fitting  out  or 
iMjuipmeut  of  which  British  8nl)jects  hail  been  in  no  way  concerned. 

In  Lord  (Jranville's  instructions  to  Her  Majesty's  High  Commissioners,  it  is  also  plain 
that  the  former  class  of  vessels  alone  is  contiMujilated.  In  the  narrative  of  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  8th  March,  1871,  contained  in  the  lUitli  Protocol,  it  seems  eiiually  cbuir  that 
tile  I'liited  St'ites  Commissioners  had  also  the  same  class  of  vessids  in  view  ;  for  they 
sjioke  of  "  the  hixtory  of  the  Alabama  and  other  ernixers  irhieh  had  been  fitted  ont,  or  armed,  or 
iqiiipiied,  or  which  had  reeeircd  angmeulatiou  of  Jorcc  iu  drcat  Britain  or  in  her  eolonicH  ;" 
and  they  exiMcssed  a  hope  "that  the  Biilish  Coinmissionerfl  would  be  able  to  place  upon 
record  an  expression  of  regret  by  Her  Majesty's  (Jovernnient  for  the  depredations  com- 
mitted by  the  vcuseln  whoxe  actn  were  now  under  dixcnuHion."  Her  Majesty's  ('ommissioners 
(on  a  later  day)  replied  "that  they  were  authorized  to  exi>ri'ss,  iu  a  friendly  spirit, 
the  regret  felt  by  Her  Majesty's  (Jovernnieiit/oc  the  excape,  under  whalrrer  eireumxtanees, 
vf  the  '■  Ali(hiinia'  aud  other  irxxelx  from  Britixh  portx,  and  for  t\w  depredations  committotl 
I'lj  them  ;"  which  expression  of  regret  was  accepted  by  the  American  Commissioners  as 
"very  satisfactory." 

In  the  first  Article  of  the  Treaty  itself,  tho  expression  of  Her  Majesty's  regret,  in 
these  identiial  words,  immediately  ]M('eedes  the  ngreeineiit  of  reference  liy  which  the 
cliiinis  i'efi.rii'd  are  described  as  '■'■growing  ont  of  act  x  committeil  by  the  afurcxuid  rcxxelx." 

Tlie  necessary  c(Micliision  appears  to  be  thai  the  vessels  iiiti'iided  to  be  referred  to  iu 
the  Treaty  were  only  such  as  could,  in  good  t'aifli,  be  alh'geil  to  have  been  fitted  ont, 
01'  iiriiied,  or  eipiipped,  or  to  have  received  an  angiiieiitatioii  of  force  in  some  jtart  of  tho 
Ihitish  dominions — the  three  Rules  in  the  Vltli  Article  of  the  Treaty  being,  of  cour.so, 
iiuitcrial  to  be  regarded  in  determining  all  ip  .stioiis  of  fait  in  any  case  alleged  to  bo 
"t'tliis  nature.  The  "Sumter,"  "Nashville,"  ai.il  other  ships  above  nii'utionid  have  never 
hi'eii  alleged  to  coiiio  within  any  of  the  terms  of  this  description,  unless,  indeed,  it  is 
i.^iw  meant  to  be  said  that  the  permission  to  any  Confedeiate  vessel  to  obtain,  in  a 
liiitisli  iiort,  such  limited  supplies  of  coal  as  were  permitted  to  both  the  belligerent 
piuties  l»y  Her  Majesty's  regulations  ought  to  be  i  .emed  an  improper  "  augmentation 
'iftlie  force''  of  such  vessel  within  the  meaniiig  of  the  second  Itule. 

HI.  The  solution  of  tho  third  question,  vi/,  what  claims  are  described  by  tho  words 
"«//  the  xaid  claims,  growing  out  of  act.i  connniltid  by  the  aforexaid  rexxelx,  and  gcnericallg 
known  as  ihe  Alabama  elaimx"  (being  the  words  in  which  the  siibject-nnifter  of  the  ref- 
iTciice  to  arbitration  agreed  upon  ■  i  defined,)  has  been  anticipated  by  the  conclusions 
iilready  arrived  at.  It  may  b«  added,  however,  that  tho  words  "growing  out  of  acta 
mnmitted  by  tha  aforesaid  vessels"  cannot,  without  forcing  them  altogether  beyond 


WW    u 

'WH 

vyw-ii 

vHSiS 

^■i->h 

^Bwl 

M 

' 

■ .  >  1 

•; 

f' 

■i    r 

1 

458 


TREATY    OF   AVASHINGTON. 


tlii'ir  fair  and  natural  snnso,  he  applied  to  claims  for  indirect  losses,  not  result  in;;  from 
any  paiti<'nlar  arlK  comm'ittid  Ity  any  partienlar  ship  or  sliips,  hnt  alleged  to  result  (so 
far  as  tliey  may  lie  refcraltle  at'all  to  naval  ormaritinn^  canses;  fiom  tin- very  exi>ti'ii((i 
on  tile  lii.nii  seas  of  a  naval  force  iieloni;i.i<;-  to  tlie  Confederate  States,  and  reeonni/nl 
l)y  (Jreat  Mritain  and  otlier  neutral  powers  as  lia  viui;  a  l»elli<;erent  eliaracfcr  and  lulli^-- 
erent  ri;;'lits.  If  the  (Confederate  States  liad,  in  fact,  procured  all  tiuMr  eruiscis  iViini 
IJritisli  siiurees,  tliis  criticism  would  still  liold  ;^()od  ;  nuudi  nuu'e  when  srveral  (in  tai't 
a  cofisideralile  majority  in  nunil)er)  of  the  (Muisers  actmdly  eniploye<l  l>y  them,  and  hv 
Avliich  losses  were  indicted  ou  United  States  citi/cns,  were  otln^rwisc  procured. 


PAKT  iir. 


On  the  amount  of  the  claims  for  indirect  losses. 


"The  claims  as  stated  hy  tin;  Anwriean  C'ommissiom'rs  may  his  classilied  as  follows: 
"1.  Tile  (dainrs  for  direct  losses  j^'rowinj^-  out  of  tiie  destruction  of  vessels  and  tluir 
carjidcs  hy  (he  insurgent  cruisers. 

"  XJ.  'I'lic  national  expemlitures  in  tle^  pursuit  of  those  cruisers. 
3.  Tin-  loss   in    the  transfer  of  the  Aiiier'ean  conunereial   marine  to  tlu!    liritisli 


llan-. 


>\v  out  of  tlu'  aci."  committi 


■1.  The  (Mdianced  ]»aynu'nts  of  insurance. 

"5.  The  prolongation  of  the  war  and  tin  addition  of  a  lar^e  sum  to  the  cost  of  tli- 
■war  and  the  suppression  id'  the  rehcllinn. 

'•  So  far  as  !hest!  various  losses  and  ex])enditnre; 
the  sever;il  cruisers,  the  I'nited  Stales  are  eniitled  to  ask  compi'usation  ai.d  rmmnera- 
tion  thi'rcfur  before  (his  Tribunal."'— (I'liited  States  Case,  j).  41)'.).) 

111'.  l''ish  obser\(^s  that  '"  an  extravagant  measure  of  <lainii^n'es"  has  heen  su]iiiiis('il, 
not  only  by  tins  Ihitish  press,  hut  also,  '•  most  unaccountably,"  ))y  some  of  the  statcs- 
ineii  of  this  country,  to  he  soni;ht  through  the  claim  for  comiiensatiou  on  aeconiit  of 
indirect  damani's.     It  will,  ther<'fore,  lie  well  to  present,  from   ^lli^<■(l  States  anthniiiv, 

-  -  -  -  |^;^j 


sonu'  part  ol"  the  evidence  which,  in  the  absence  of  explanation  or  retraclion.  h 

to  this  eoiHcption.     I'ndoubtcdly  thi'  Case  (p.    ITti)  disclaims  an  accurate  <'st  iuiatc 

hnt   it  siijiplii's  materials  which   cannot   fail   to  su!^;;cst   (he   appropriate   coueliisioii 


Thev  are 


as  l< 


I'rom  the  Itli  of  July,  l-^C);!,  Creat  Ihitaiii  is  dc(dared  to  liave  been  "the  leid 
ant  hor  ol'  the  woes  "  of  the  .\merican  jietiple,  (p.  4711.)  I'rom  tliis  t  inie  "  tlu;  war  was 
in'oloiin'cd  for  the  pnrposi^  "  rtf  niaintainiii;;'  olfcnsive  ojierations  "  thronnh  the  cruiser.-  " 


(ihid.)      And    the    arbitrator: 


are 


(Jreat  Ihil 


aecordinj;ly   called    upon    "to   determine 


■tlier 


nn 


m'ht    not    in    ei[Uit.y    to    re-imburse    to    the    United    States    tl 


peiises  thereby  entaileil  u)»on  them,"  (ibid.)  On  all  these*  [loints,  the  (Jase  pni- 
ceeds  to  state,  tin*  evidence  "  will  onai)l(5  the  Trilmiial  to  asc^u'tain  anil  dtdiu'inine  the 
anionnt."  To  this  amount  interest  is  to  lie  added  up  to  the  day  when  tlu*  compensatimi 
is  payaltle.  witl.iu  t  wcdvc  mout  lis  after  the  award,  (p.  4^0.)  The  rate  of  interest  in  \e\v 
"\'ork  is  7  per  cent.,  {ibid.;)  and  "the  United  Slates  mak<*  a  claim  for  interest  at  that 
rate"  from  .Fnly  1,  ISli!),  "as  the  most  eciuitaliie  day."  The  interest,  therelore,  is  to 
be  (di;iru;cd  at  T  percent,  lor  a  ])eriod  (d'  from  tiMi  to  eleven  years. 


It 


may  be  iiresumed  to  be  incajialde  (d'  dispute*  that  more*  than  half  the  exp 


.of 


the  war  w<'re  incurred  aft<'r  the  lirst  of  .July,  H(i:>.     What  \\as  the  sum  total  of  these 

expenses  .'     U|ion   this  jtoint  there  is,  in  a  Ibrni  generally  if  not  precisely  a|ipropiiat('. 
"  -        .       -  .    .  •  .   .  ..  ii^^, 

MI.IIIIII.OIIII 


ofticial    evidence    from  America.     In   (he    h'eporr    of  the  Special  Commissienier  of 
Iv'evenne  for  lHl)!»,  (p.  vi,)  they  iir(>  stat-d  at  ;),ll'.).'),<Mli).(l()ll  dollars,  imdudin;^-  1,'Ji 


dollars  for  the  suspension  of  industry.    Of  this  amount  'J,700,()lM),(Hj(l  are  set  down  tc  tl 
Confederates. 

Thus  ii  iippears  that  the  Cas(!  docs  not  <xo  beyond  the  truth  (so  far  as  this  liead  of 
damajic  is  c(uieeriied)  in  stalin;^  that  the  Arbitrators  would  iind  the  niat<'rials  >ulii- 
••iently  sn|iplied  for  estiniat  in;f  the  annni'it  which  "  in  e<|nity"  (ireat    I!ritaiu  oujilit  to 


pay. 


it 


Avliich  rel'i 


ma.v  iiH 
renci 


Iced  be  said  that  the  aiuonnt,  siii;i;'ested  by  t he  passa<;i's  and  fans  to 
is  ni.ade,  forms  an  inerediole  demand,  lint,  in  jiernsin^-  and  cxaiMin- 
in;;'  this  Case,  the  business  of  lierMa.iesty's  (iovernnient  has  been  (o  deal,  not  willi 
any  .•ibstiaci  rule  of  credibility,  I  ml  w  ilh  actual,  re;;nlar,  and  formal  jilcas,  staleil  and 
lodii'cd  a^^ainst  (ireat  liiitain  on  behalf  of  one  of  the  j;rcatest  iiatiims  ot'  tin-  earth.    I 


it.  then 


I  nnaccountalde,"  in   view  of  (he  evidi  nee  as  it  slands,  that  (he  prc-^ 


and  that  s(atesmeii  of  (his  ecmndy  should  have  fornn'd  (In*  idea,  (hat  "an  extravagant 
measure  of  damages"  wa.s  scuight  by  the  (joveriiment  of  the  United  States  / 


CORRESrONDEXCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION.      459 


fum 


iiilliii;^;  riom 
to  ^(■^ulr  (si) 

I  lC(oj;lii/,itl 
V  iiiul  licUi^- 
riiiscrs  tVom 
(tmI  (ill  fact 
licin,  and  by 
ircd. 


If:  iiiiiK'ins  fioiii  tlic  (lis)»!itc1inf  Mr.  I'i.sli  tliiit  no  siudi  idea  lins  m'or  hi^cii  cntcifaiiicd 
liy  llial  (iiiviTiiiiU'iit.  Ilaviiiu;  this  aiit  lii'iitic  assiiiaiicc  so  siijiplicd,  it  iii;iy  lie  dci'iiicd 
littli'  material  to  iiniiiiii'  wlictlifr  on  this  inijiortant  matt<'r  the  iaiii;iia;4('  of  tiie  Case 
lias  hcOn  misunderstood  Iiy  Her  Majesty's  (Jovernnieiit,  or  whether  it  is  now  disavowed. 
II',  however,  it  has  liecn  iniseonstrued,  the  ndseonstriietion  iindoiihtedly  lias  not  heen 
(oniiiK  '  to  Enj;land,  but  has  been  liirgoly  shared  by  writers  ou  the  Continent  of 
Earoiie. 

Wi'ic  this  Goveruinent  indeed  ]irepared  to  ae'iniesco  in  the  submission  of  tlieso 
claims,  it  would  still  remain  to  ask  in  what  way  tin;  (iovernnieni  of  tlio  United  Statcjs 
]in)|iosed  to  ;;nard  aj;ainst  th(>  aeeeptaiUM^  by  the  Arliitrators  of  thoseenormoiisestimates 
wliieh,  taUeii  without  aiitlioritative,  comment,  tin?  lani;uai;e  of  the  l!ase  siij;j''ests.  Jhit 
it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  ol)scrve.  that  the  ([uestion  of  more  or  less  in  this  matt(!r  is 
ciitii'cly  distinct,  from  the  <|nestion  of  princiide  on  which  the  statements  and  ar^^nments 
of  Her  Majesty's  Uovernmeut  are  founded. 


il  as  follow^;; 
,(ds  and  llu-ir 


f Tiirlnsurc  3  in  Xo.  Ill] 


a  tlu!   JJiitish 


lie  cost  of  till! 

committiil  by 
11, d  reniiineia- 

iceii  siipiiiwi'd, 
(,['  the  slates-^ 
()ii  accoiiiil  (if 
tes  aiitlmriiy, 
I'tion.  ha-.  Inl 
ate  est  iiiiati' ; 
e    eonclusioil. 

[■en  "  the  iviil 
tlu!  war  WHS 
1  the  cruisers." 
mine  wlicthi'V 
tales  till'  <'X- 
le  (;ase  pio- 
lelermine  the 
oiuiielisiltieil 
terest  ill  N'l'W 
terest  at  that 
lerefori',  is  to 

e  exiielisi's  of 
total  of  those 
y  aiiprojiriatc, 

i-,inlier  of  till' 
u-  l.-j(MI,ll|lll,(llll) 

•  t  down  t(.  til" 

IS  this  liead  <il' 
ulerials  sulli- 
•ilain  oii!;lit  to 
es  anil  i'arls  to 

•  and  cNaiiiiii- 
(leal,  mil  \villi 
■:is,  stated  anil 

theeartii.  Ift 
that  the  piox 
n  extravagant 
te.s  / 


llciicral  Sihcitck  to  luirl  (Irdnrilh: 

'  LKti.vnox  or  Tin-:  r\iTi'.i)  Staiks, 

Londou,  -JLs/  Manli,  1^7'2. 

!\Iv  L()i;t):  At  ii  very  lat<!  hour  last  ninlit  F  received  your  Lordship's  n«te  of  the  date 
ol'  yesterday,  inibrminj;'  me  that  you  had  laid  liefore  your  c(dleai;iies  the  copy  of  Mr. 
FislTs  disp.iteh  to  me  of  the  'jriii  ultimo,  of  wiiieh  I  fiiruislieU  you  a  eo))y  on  the  1  UIi 
instant. 

I  have  also  rv'ceived,  at  half  past  four  o'<do(d';  to-day,  a  ]irinted  co])y  of  a  uiem<u'an- 
(liiin,  which  yon  refer  to  in  the  note  as  beinji  inclosed,  ami  Which  you  r<Mpiest  to  have 
read  and  considered  as  )>iirt  of  that  coMimuiiication,  beiiij;'  intended,  as  you  iiiforni  me, 
to  explain  to  the  ruited  States,  more  fully  than  can  be  ilone  in  the  form  id' a  letter, 
and  as  Her  Majesty's  (iovernment  is  anxious  to  do,  the  considerations  which  eansed 
tlieiu  to  hold  the  belief  at  the  time  ol  the  ratilieation  of  the  Ti'eaty  that  a  waiver  had 
liceii  made  id'  the  (daims  tor  ihdireet  daiiiau'es. 

Ilaviii;;-  informed  me  that  lier  Majesty's  (iovernment,  reeoi:;iii/iii<j;  with  ]ile.isui'e  tln^ 
iissiiraiice  of  the  I'resident  that  he  sincerely  desires  to  promote  a  lirm  and  abidin;;; 
friendship  between  the  two  coniitries,  and  beine-  animated  by  the  same  spirit,  gladly 
avail  thenisidves  of  tlu!  invitation  whiidi  you  say  my  (iovernment  appears  to  have 
;;iveii,  that  they  should  state  the  reasons  whicdi  induce  them  to  make  the  declaration 
I'oiitained  in  your  note  of  the  :>d  ultimo,  yon  add  th.at  tlmse  reasmis  were  piirposidy 
omitted  at  that  time  in  tlu^  hope  id'  obtainiiin,  witluuit  any  controversial  discussion, 
the  assent  thereto  of  the  (iovernnient  of  tlu^  I'liited  States.' 

Your  J,ordslii}»  then  inocecds,  in  reply  to  ^Ir.  Fish's  note,  to  discuss  the  whoh;  (pies- 
lion  of  the  rijiht  of  tin;  Tnited  States,  under  the  ]U-ovisions  of  the  Treaty,  to  put  for- 
ward in  their  Case  preseiiti'd  at  (ieueva  their  (lainis  lor  indirect  losses  and  dama.^es, 
and  to  state  the  i^rounds  lor  your  denial  id'  such  riyht  and  tiie  areumeiits  by  which 
lliat  denial  is  sinij^ht  to  be  sustained. 

And  your  liordshi])  idoses  this  full  and  loiifi' statement  of  views  and  ariiuments  by 
cxpressiiijn- the  contideni  l'eelin;;-of  Her  Majesty's  (iovcrnineiit  that  tlieyli;i\e  laid  be- 
lore  the  I'resident  ampli'  proid'  that  the  comdnsion  wlii<di  was  annonnci'd  in  yiuir  note 
lit  the  ;>d  (d'  F(d)ruary,  and  l>y  which  you  think  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  they  ad- 
luac,  cannot  be  shaken. 

This  conclusion  1  nndeistand  to  be  that  "  Her  Majesty's  Government  hold  that  it  is 
no!  within  llu  province  id"  the  Tiibunal  of  Arbit  rat  i(Mi  at  (ieiieva  to  tiecide  up(Ui  the 
claims  for  imlirecd  losses  and  injuries  put  forward  liy  the  United  States." 

Almost  every  moment  of  a\ailabhv  time  since  the  recei])t  of  your  l.oi'dship's  uotiOi.'is 
Iji'cn  occupied  with  the  cojiyinirof  it,  in  order  that  1  may  be  .abh!  to  transmit  it  in  time 
loovertake  at  (^neeustown  the  mail  steamer  whiidi  leaves  Liverpool  to-day.  1  theri!- 
lofe  make  my  a(d\iiowledy;nient  (d'  I  he  deli  very  of  yonr  comuiunieation  brief,  and  hasten 
lolnrwaid  it  to  my  Go\  einnieiit  at  lamie,  that  it  may  have,  with  the  least  iiossiblo 
ilelay,  the  attention  and  answer  from  Iheie  wiiich  it  may  be  tliou;;;lit  to  require. 
1  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respeidfullv,  your  obedient  servant, 

ROUT.  C.  SCIIENCK. 


460  TREATY   OF   WASHINGTON. 

No.  14. 

General  Schenck  to  M^.  Fish. 
[Telegram.] 

London,  1st  April,  1872. 
Have  you  any  objection  to  British  Government  filing  Counter  Case, 
without  prejudice  to  their  position  in  regard  to  consequential  damages'? 
Keceived  at  9.40  a.  m. 

SCHEXCK. 


No.  15. 

Mr.  Fish  to  General  SchencTc. 
[Telegram.] 

Washington,  Ainil  2, 1872. 

AYe  unrlerstaud  the  British  Government  is  bound  to  file  Counter-Case, 
and  that  their  so  doing  will  not  prejudice  any  jmsition  they  have  taken, 
uor  affect  any  position  of  this  Government.  The  rights  of  both  paities 
will  be  the  same  after  filing  as  before. 

Is  the  inquiry  made  at  their  request  ? 

FISH. 


No.  16. 

Mr.  Fish  to  General  SchencJc. 

No.  181.]  DErART3IENT  OF  STATE, 

Washington,  April  10,  1872. 

Sir:  I  have  given  very  careful  attention  to  the  note  of  tiie  20tU 
March,  addressed  to  you  by  Earl  Granville,  professing  to  state  the 
reasons  which  induced  Iler  Majesty's  Government  to  make  the  declara- 
tion contained  in  his  previous  note  to  you  of  3d  February,  that,  in  the 
opinion  of  Her  Majesty's  Government,  it  is  not  within  the  province  of  the 
Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  Geneva  to  decide  ui)on  the  claims  for  indirect 
losses  and  injuries  jmt  forward  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States. 

His  Lordsliip  declares  this  statement  lo  be  made  upon  the  invitation 
which  this  Government  appears  to  have  given.  I  should  regret  that 
what  was  intended  only  as  a  courteous  avoidance  of  the  naked  presenta- 
tion of  a  directly  opposite  opinion  to  that  which  had  been  expressed  on 
behalf  of  the  British  Government,  uusustained  by  any  reasons,  should 
have  subjected  His  Lordship  to  the  necessity  of  an  elaborate  reply.  It 
Avas  not  the  desire  of  this  Government  to  invite  any  controversial  dis- 
cussion, nor  have  they  now  any  wish  to  enter  upon  or  continue  such  dis- 
cussion. 

Some  remarks,  however,  appear  in  the  note  of  His  Lordship  which 
seem  to  require  a  reply. 

It  opens  with  a  seeming  denial  of  the  accuracy  of  my  assertion  that 
claims  for  indirect  losses  and  injuries  are  not  put  forward  for  the  iiist 


lii^. 


CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION.      461 

time  in  the  "Case"  presented  by  this  Government  to  the  Tribunal  at 
Geneva— that  for  years  they  have  been  prominently  and  historically  part 
of  the  "Alabama  claims'' — and  that  incidental  or  conse(piential  damages 
were  oft(Mi  mentioned  as  inchided  in  the  accountability. 

It  cannot  be  supposed  that  His  Lordship  intends  more  than  to  say  that 
the  claims  for  indirect  or  national  losses  and  injuries  were  not  "formu- 
lated" by  this  Government,  and  the  amount  thereof  set  ^orth  in  detail 
qnd  as  a  s[)ecific  demand,  for  he  admits  that  on  the  20tli  November, 
1862,  within  a  few  weeks  after  the  "Alabama"  had  set  out  on  her 
career  of  pillage  and  destruction,  Mr.  Adams  suggested  the  liability  of 
Great  Britain  for  losses  other  than  those  of  individual  sutiercrs.  In  his 
note  of  that  date  to  Lord  Kussell,  I\Ir.  Adams  stated  that  he  was  in- 
structed by  his  Government  to  "solicit  redress  for  the  national  and 
private  injuries  already  thus  sustained." 

On  thelDth  February,  1.SG3,  Mr.  Seward  instructed  Mr.  Adams  that 
"  this  Government  does  not  think  itself  bound  in  justice  to  relinquish  its 
claims  tor  redress  for  the  injuries  which  have  remiltcd  from  the  Jitting 
out  and  dispatch  of  the  Alabama  in  a  British  port. ''^ 

As  the  consequences  of  this  fitting  out  began  to  develop  themselves, 
and  their  effects  in  encouraging  the  rebellion  became  manifest,  IMr. 
Adams,  in  an  interview  with  Lonl  Kussell,  indicated  them  (as  described 
by  the  latter  in  a  letter  to  Lord  Lyons  under  date  of  27th  March,  180.)) 
as  "a  manifest  consi)iracy  in  this  country  (Great  Britain)  to  produce  a 
state  of  exasperation  in  America,  ami  thus  bring  on  a  war  with  Great 
Biitain,  irith  a  view  to  aid  the  Confederate  cavse.''^ 

In  a  note  dated  April  7,  1805,  addressed  to  Lord  Russell,  iMr.  Adams, 
after  complaining  of  the  hostile  policy,  pursuant  to  which  the  cruisers 
were  fitted  out,  says,  "That  policy  I  trust  I  need  not  point  out  to  your 
Lordship  is  substantially  the  destruction  of  the  whole  mercantile  nari(/ation 
helongiuff  to  the  people  of  the  United  States.''''  "  It  may  thus  be  fairly 
assume*!  as  true  that  Great  Br-itain,  as  a  national  poa-er,  is,  in  point  of 
fact,  fast  acquiring  the  entire  maritime  commerce  of  the  United  States.'^ 

That  Lord  Russell  regarded  this  as  the  foundation  of  a  claim  for  dam- 
ages for  the  transfer  of  the  commercial  marine  of  the  United  States  to 
the  flag  of  Great  Britain  is  api)arent,  in  his  reply  to  Mr.  Adams,  under 
date  of  May  4,  1805,  when  he  says:  "I  can  never  admit  that  the  duties 
of  Great  Britain  toward  the  United  States  are  to  be  measured  by  the 
losses  which  the  trade  and  commerce  of  the  United  States  may  have 
sustained." 

Again,  on  the  20th  May,  1805,  Mr.  Adams,  writing  to  Lord  Russell, 
distinctly  names  indirect  or  consequential  losses.  His  language  is, "  that, 
in  addition  to  this  direct  iu]nry,  the  action  of  these  British-built,  manned, 
and  armed  vessels  has  had  the  indirect  effi  ct  of  driving  from  the  sea  a 
large  portion  of  the  ct  .  -ircial  marine  of  the  United  States,  and  to  a 
corresponding  extent  enlarging  that  of  Great  Britain;"  that  "inju- 
ries thus  received  are  of  so  grave  a  nature  as  in  reason  ami  justice  to 
constitute  a  valid  claim  for  reparation  and  indemnification.'"  In  the  same 
note  he  says,  "The  very  fact  of  the  admitted  rise  in  the  rates  of  insurance 
on  American  ships  only  brings  us  once  more  back  to  look  at  the  original 
cause  of  all  the  trouble." 

It  is  difficult  to  imagine  a  more  definite  statement  of  a  purpose  to 
require  indemnification. 

On  the  14th  February,  1866,  after  the  presentation  of  the  above-recited 
coninlaints,  Mr.  Seward,  writing  to  Mr.  Adams,  said :  "  There  is  not  one 
member  of  this  Government,  and,  so  far  as  I  know,  not  one  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  who  expects  that  this  country  will  waive,  in  any 


m 


I 


462 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON. 


iH: 


case,  tlu'  <l('inini(I  tliat  wo  have  licrotofore  made  upon  tho  lliif isli  Cov- 
oniiiK'nt  I'orthe  rodiessof  wrong's comiiiittL'd  in  violation  of  intt'iiii.tional 
law.'- 

And  a.uaiii,  on  tlui  2d  ^lay,  ISO?,  ]Mr.  Seward  wrifos  to  Mr.  Adams: 
".Vs  tlu'  (!ase  now  stands,  tlic  injinics  hy  wlu<:h  tlio  United  Stales 
are  a,u;;rieved  iirc  not  vhiclJij  llic  (u-tiial  losses  siisfaiard  iti  the  scrcral 
<l('prc(l<( lions,  hut  tlie  first  unriieiidly  oi'  wron^i^'lul  proeeediny,  ol  wiiicii 
they  are  but  the  eonseqnenees.'" 

llis  Lordship  also  admits  the  mention,  hy  ^Fr.  I'everdy  .7(dinsoii,  in 
INlareh,  lS(i!),  of  a  "claim  for  national  losses,"  which  Lord  ('larendoa,  ia 
a  papei-  pnhlislied  in  the  IJritish  Parliainentary  l'ai)ers,  "North  Amer- 
ica, No.  1,  IS ."(),"  page  18,  defines  "nati(nial  indirect,  or  constructive 
claims." 

On  ir)lh  May,  ISd!),  I  instructed  Mr.  ^lotley  that  this  GovornnuMit,  in 
"rejecting;-  the  recent  ronveution,  abandons  HiUhcr  its  own  cl<(iins\u)v 
those  of  its  citizens." 

Lord  Clarendon,  in  a  dis])atch  of  June  10,1800,  to  ^Tr.  Thornton,  men- 
tioned that  .Ml'.  IMotleyhad  assijiiied,  iunoii.u'  the  causes  which  led  to  the 
rejection  ol'  the  flohnston-Clarendon  treaty,  that  the  "  Coiiveiilion  was 
objected  to  because  it  embraced  only  the  claims  of  individuals,  and  had 
lU)  lefercMce  to  those  of  the  two  Governments  on  each  other."' 

On  i'.-)lli  September,  18(;0,  writing'  to  3Ir.  Motley,  I  said:  "Tlienmii- 
berof  shii»s  thuw  direcrtly  destroyed  amounts  to  nearly  two  hundred,  and 
tlie  value  of  the  propei'ty  destroyed  to  many  millions.  TiKlirrr/li/  the 
effect  was  io  increase  the  rate  of  insurance  in  the  Llnited  Slates,  and  Id 
iaix-e  an'ay  from  the  United  States  its  innnense  f'oreifpt  commerce^  and  to 
transfer  this  to  the  merchant  vessels  of  (Jreat  Uritain."  "We  complain 
of  the  destruction  of  our  merchant  marine  by  Hritish  ships."  "The 
rresident  is  not  yet  prejyared  to  sjK'ak  of  the  reparation  which  he  thinks 
due  l)>i  tlie  Uritish  (lorrrnment  J'or  the  lanjer  account  of  th^  vast  national 
injuries  it  has  indicted  on  the  United  States.'' 

In  thesaau^  instruction  I  also  wrote  what  seems  pertinent  to  (he  jji'es- 
ent  i)hase  of  the  (pu-stion  betwe<Mi  the  two  (lovernments:  "\\'hen  oiio 
power  demands  of  another  the  I'cdress  of  alleged  wrongs,  and  the  latter 
entertidns  tlu;  idea  of  arbitration  as  the  means  of  settling  the  (pu'stioii. 
it  seems  irrational  to  insist  that  the  arbitration  shall  be  a  (lualilied  or 
limited  one.""  ^ 

Lord  Clarendon  wrote  to  Mr.  Thornton,  on  (Jth  Novendjer,  18()0,  tliat 
he  was  oflicially  imlbrnuMl  by  ]\Ir.  ]\[otley  that  while  the  I'resideiit  at 
that  time  abstained  from  pronouncing  on  the  indemnities  due  for  the 
destruction  of  private  property,  he  also  abstained  from  speaking  "of  the 
rt'paratiou  which  he  thinks  due  by  the  Jbitish  (JovernnuMit  for  the 
larger  account  of  the  vast  national  injuries  it  has  intjicted  on  the  United 
States." 

Lord  Chu'endon,  iu  some  "observations"  on  my  note,  (Blue  Unok, 
North  America,  No.  1, 1870,  i)ag'e  I.'{  et  scq.,)  d\velt  at  length  on  my  alle- 
gation of  national  or  indirect  injuries,  and  charaeteri/ed  them  as 
"(7«('y».s',"  and  resisted  then\  as  such.  ^Vnd  in  an  instruction  to  31r. 
Thornton,  of  12tii  January,  1870,  he  recognizes  the  paper  as  relating  to 
the  "Alabama  claims."  (lilue  Jjook,  North  America,  No.  1,  1>S7(>, 
page  L'O.) 

It  caniu)t  be  denied  that  these  public  or  national  claims  (now  called 
"indirect")  were  prouiiuently  before  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
when  the  Convention  of  14th  January,  ]8t)l\  was  under  advisement  in 
thai  body,  nor  that  they  were  sab.sequeutly  actively  canviissed  before 


mr 


CORRKSPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARIUTRA TIOX.      4G3 

tlio  i)('oi»l(',  i»f  both  conntrit's,  siiul  osijocially  by  tlio  ])i'('s.s  of  (Iroat 
IJritaiii. 

It  is  <'(|iiiilly  iinlispiitiiblc  tliiit  in  my  note  to  Mr.  ^Motley,  of  Sciitcm- 
bcr  L*r»,  1S(;:»,  to  which  Lord  CliirciKlon  icplicd,  thcro  was  ijicsciUimI 
tlic  ivparatioii  wliich  tlic  rrcsidcnt  thon,nh(  "(bic  by  tlic  l>riiif<Ii  (lov- 
eniiiieiit  for  the  vasl  natioiKil  injiiriin  it  liad  iiiliick'd  on  Iho  United 
tStates." 

Tile  .')(!th  Protocol  of  the  .Toitit  Ilij^h  Coinii)issioii  shows  that  the  iiiib- 
rcct  h)sses  were  vbstiiK;tly  presenti'd  to  tiie  notice  of  the  Ihilisji  (.'oni- 
inissioners  in  tlie  very  bejiinnin.^'  of  the  ne^i'otiations  on  the  suijject,  and 
tliat  tlu-y  remained  unelialien.ii'ed  to  tiu^  si<4nin,y'  of  tlie  treaty. 

At  every  staj^e,  tlierefor*',  of  tlie  proeee(Un<;s,  from  Noveinbei',  ISOi*, 
when  Mr.  Achiins  "solicited  redress  for  the  H<i(i<ni<il  injnries  sns- 
t;iined,"  to  (he  date  of  the  Treaty,  tiiis  (iovernnuMit  has  kept  belore  tlia4^  of 
Great  Ibitain  her  assertion  of  the  liability  of  the  latter  tor  what  are 
now  termed  the  " //<^///rcrinJuries.'" 

The  President  now  learns  ibr  the  tiist  time,  and  with  surprise,  that 
Her  iMaj'esty's  (b)vernment  accepted  his  sii;4'ji'('stion  tliat  tlie  proposed 
("ommission  shonld  treat  for  "the  remo\al  of  the  <lilb'rences  wliu-li  arose 
(huiii;.';  the  rel>eliion  in  the  Uin'ted  States,  and  which  have  exi.sted  since 
tiieii,  (/ro/riii,'/  out  of  the  (tct.s  committed  by  the  several  vessels  which 
liiive  ,>4i\('ii  nse  to  the  claims  <;'enerically  known  as tii<'  '.Via ba ma  claims,''' 
ill  tlie  full  coiilidenoe  that  no  claim  w^uld  be  made  by  the  I'nited  Slates 
lor  the  national  losses  which  Icid  been  continuously  pres(>nted. 

It  is  not  to  he  denied  that  "  differences"  had  arisen  between  the  two 
(lovernments  resiiectinj;'  these  claims,  and  the  Treaty  attests  that  the 
two  (lovernments  were  desirous  to  i)rovide  Ibr  amical)le  settlement  of 
((//  ciiiiscs  of  ilffcrciicc,  and  for  that  iuiri)ose  appointed  their  icspcctivo 
Pleiiijiotentiaries.  It  is  thus  declared  in  the  outset  that  the  amercements 
wliieh  are  al)nut  to  be  formulated  are  not  intended  to  be  an  ••  amicable 
si'ttlement,"  but  are  intended,  on  the  contrary,  '-'■  tn  proridc  for  a  speedy 
settlement."  The  snl)jeet  of  the  submission  in  a.  solemn  Treaty  will  not 
lie  naiTower  than  the  declared  object  sou,i;ht  to  be  ac'comiilished  in  the 
ivCercnce,  iiud  that  oI>ject  was  declared  to  be  the  removal  of  (W/ c«//«- 
lilaint.s  (did  chdiiis. 

Tiie  Treaty  also  attests  that  the  ditferences  which  had  arisen,  uroirhir/ 
init  (f  the  attts  committed  by  the  ^jeveral  vessels  which  had  i^iveii  rise  to 
llie  claims  f/cnvricnili/  known  as  the  Alabama  claims,  stiU  exist,  and  that 
ill  order  to  remove  and  adjust  all  coniphdiits  (titd  rlahii.s,  "  all  tiie  claims 
(li'oicini/out  of  //(tw(t'^s* committed  by  the  aforesaid  vessels,  and  (,ciiei'icalli/ 
known  as  the  xVhibama  chiinis,  shall  be  referred  to  a  Tribunal  of  Arbi- 
tration." 

Y'oii  can  bear  witness  that  not  even  an  intinnition  of  the  character 
now  [>uf  forward  by  Earl  CJranville  was  made  at  anytime  diiriny;  the 
deliberations  of  the  .Joint  llij;h  (jommission. 

If  Her  Majesty's  Commissioners  weie  ajipointed,  entered  njxin,  and 
'oiitiiiued  tlie  negotiations  with  this  (rovewimeiit  under  instructions 
iiiid  with  the  convi(;tion  that  the  corres[)ondence  between  Sir  Kdward 
Thornton  and  myself  did  not  cover,  and  was  not  inten<led  to  (tover,  "  as 
a  subject  of  negotiation,  any  claim  for  indirect  or  national  losses,''  the 
withholding  of  such  instructions,  and  the  abstaining  from  the  expres- 
sion of  such  conviction  ou  their  part,  was  most  unfortunate ;  and  tho 
absence  of  any  dissent  or  remonstrance  against  this  class  of  the  claims, 
either  when  lirst  foruially  presented  to  the  Commissioners,  or  during' the 
whole  negotiation,  or  in  the  Protocols,  is  most  remarkable. 

These  claims  were  presented  to  the  British  Commissioners  as  solemnly, 


*-il 

'■M^ 


fl 


m 


464 


TREATY    OF    AVASIIINGTON. 


and  with  more  defiiiitoness  of  specification,  than  were  piesonted  by 
them  to  tlie  American  Commissioners  the  chiims  for  allc^icd  iiijini(  s 
wiiicih  tlie  peoph;  of  Canada  were  said  to  have  suffered  from  wliat  was 
known  as  the  Fenian  raids;  yet,  while  the  American  Coiuinissioncis 
formally  objected  to  the  claims  for  the  Fenian  raids,  as  not  emljraccd  in 
the  scope  of  the  correspondence  which  led  to  the  formation  of  the  ('om- 
mission,  and  recorded  on  the  Protocols  their  nnwillingness  to  enter  npoti 
the  consideration,  each  time  that  they  were  referred  to,  the  IJritish  Coni- 
missioners,  from  the  first  to  the  last,  took  no  exception  and  recorded  no 
objection  to  the  i)resentation  made  by  the  American  Commissioners  of 
tiie  claims  fieneriealh/  known  as  the  Alabama  claims,  which  stand  in  tiie 
Protocol  as  a  '■'•  ffetim^^  or  class  of  claims,  com[)rehending  several  species, 
and  amonj;"  them  enumerating  specifically  the  claims  for  indirect  losses 
and  injuries. 

The  positive  exclusion  by  the  Protocol  of  one  class  of  claims  ndvanced 
would  seem  to  be  conclusive  of  the  noirexclusion  of  the  other  class  ad- 
vanced with  {greater  definiteness and  pre(!ision,  but  with  respect  to  which 
no  exception  was  taken,  and  no  dissent  recorded. 

It  is  di(U<!ult  to  reconcile  the  elaborate  line  of  argument  put  forward 
by  Earl  Clranville  to  show  a  waiver  of  claims  for  indirect  losses,  with 
the  idea  that  at  the  outset  of  the  negotiations  Her  Majesty's  (iovern- 
ment  did  not  consider  the  matter  of  jmblic  or  national  injuries  as  tiic 
basis  of  an  outstanding  claim  against  Great  JJritain  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States. 

If  these  claims  had  (.is  Lord  Granville's  note  implies,  even  if  it  does 
not  assert)  no  existence  in  fact,  ajid  had  never  been  "■notified"  or  pre- 
sented, and  were  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Joint  High  Comniis- 
sion,  why  is  so  much  stn'ss  laid  upon  their  assumed  reliinpiishnHMit ' 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  had  existence  in  fact,  if  they  had  (as 
the  references  which  1  have  made  to  a  cori-espondence  extending' 
over  a  long  series  of  years  establish,  I  think,  beyond  the  possil)iliry 
of  doubt)  been  frequently  and  i)ersistently  presente<l  and  notified  in 
the  British  Government,  why  is  not  their  positive  exclusion  frtun  the 
reference  to  the  arbitration  shown  ?  Why  should  an  important  class  of 
claims,  measured  in  their  possibilities,  according  to  the  estimate  of  the 
British  press,  by  fabulous  amounts,  be  left  to  an  inferential  exclusion? 

What  interest,  upon  Lord  Granville's  theory,  could  Great  Britain  have 
in  the  proposed  abandonment  of  such  claims,  or  why  otter  any  consid- 
eration therefor  ? 

How  can  Her  Majesty's  Government  contend,  at  the  same  moment, 
that  the  preliminary  correspondence  excluded  the  indirect  or  national 
losses,  and  that  the  possibility  of  admitting  such  claims  as  a  subject  of 
negotiation  harl  never  been  entertained  by  Great  Britain,  an<l  on  the 
other  hand  that  they  offered  and  considered  the  "amicable  settlement" 
of  the  Treaty,  with  its  expressions  and  its  recognition  of  certain  rules, 
as  the  consideration  and  the  price  paid  for  a  waiver  of  those  claims  by 
the  United  States  ?  • 

T  should  not  feel  justified  in  referring  to  the  expressions  used  by  Earl 
Gianville  and  other  eminent  members  of  the  British  Parliament  in  their 
legislative  capacities,  but  for  his  own  reference  thereto,  and  for  the 
responsibility  to  which  His  Lordship  attempts  to  hold  you  for  your  pres- 
ence at  one  of  their  sessions,  and  to  which  I  shall  again  refer. 

But  the  reference  made  by  Earl  Granville  to  the  debate  in  the  House 
of  Lords  on  the  12th  of  June,  and  his  owu  declaration  on  that  occasion, 
that  "they  (the  indirect  claims)  entirely  disappear,^  strengthens  the 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTINC    CENEVA    ARBITRATION.      465 


L»   (?xteiHliiiH; 


|iositiou  of  tliis  (fovernment  tliat  they  had  been  i)iescnte(l  and  were 
lecogniztMl  as  part  of  the  claims  of  the  United  States. 

A  disappearance  certainly  implies  a  previons  appearance. 

Lord  Cairns,  long  accustomed  to  close  judicial  investigation  and  the 
critical  examination  of  statutes  and  of  treaties,  did  not  agree  to  the 
proposition  that  there  liad  been  a  relinquishment  of  the  claims.  He 
declared  that  there  could  not  be  found  ''one  single  word  *  * 

which  would  prevent  such  claims  being  put  in  and  taking  their  chance 
under  the  Treaty." 

If,  tli'refore,  you  were  ])resent  l.'>V':  gli  the  whole  of  the  debate,  you 
heard  advanced  in  the  Jlousc  of  Lords  as  well  the  opinion  held  by  the 
United  States  as  that  now  put  forward  in  behalf  of  Great  Britain. 

It  is  true  that  Mr.  Adams  did  not  "define  or  formulate"  claims  for 
national  losses.  He  did,  bowever,  "notify"  tiiem  to  Her  Majesty's 
Government.  During  the  war  these  claims  were  continually  arising  and 
increasing,  and  could  not  then  be  "defined,"  and  the  time  for  "formu- 
lating" them  would  not  arise  until  a  willingness  to  enter  u])on  their  con- 
sideration arose. 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  in  the  spring  of  1803  Her  I^Iajesty's  Gov- 
ernment exhibited  some  impatience  when  Mr.  Adams  communicated 
losses,  and  claims  of  indennification  therefor,  and  Lord  Kussell,  under 
date  of  0th  March  of  that  year,  wrote  to  Mv.  Adams  that  "  Her  Majes- 
ty's Government  entirely  disclaim  all  responsibility  for  any  acts  of  the 
Alabama,  and  they  hoi)ed  that  they  had  already  made  this  decision  on 
their  part  plain  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States." 

In  July,  1803,  Lord  Kussell  referred  Mr.  Adams  to  his  note  of  9th 
March,  and  repeated  tlie  disclaimer  of  all  liability  ;  and  on  the  14th  Sep- 
tember, in  stdl  more  marked  language,  he  expressed  the  hope  "that 
Mr.  Adams  may  not  be  instructed  again  to  i)ut  forward  claims  which 
Her  Majesty's  Government  cannot  admit  to  be  founded  on  any  grountls 
of  iiw  or  justice."  Lord  llussell's  replies  to  Mr.  Adams  att'ord  the 
answer  to  Lord  Granville's  remark  that  "  no  claims  (except  direct  claims) 
were  ever  defined  or  formulated." 

But  although  the  United  States,  under  these  circumstances,  could  not 
consider  that  hour  as  the  most  favorable  to  a  calm  examination  of  the 
facts  or  principles  involved  in  cases  like  those  in  question,  and  notwith- 
standing these  admonitions,  it  became  imperative  on  Mr.  Adams  still  to 
present  complaints. 

On  30th  December,  1802,  he  had  complained  of  acts  with  the  intent 
to  "procrastinate  the  war." 

On  March  14,  1803,  he  wrote  to  Lord  Kussell  that  "  the  war  had  been 
continued  and  sustained  by  the  insurgents  for  many'  months  past  mainly 
by  the  co-operation  and  assistance  obtained  from  British  subjects  in 
Her  Majesty's  kingdom  and  dependencies."  He  repeats  a  similar  com- 
plaint on  27th  March,  and  again  on  28th  April,  coupled  with  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  responsibility  attending  those  who  "  furnish  the  means 
of  protracting  the  struggle." 

At  no  time  during  the  occurrence  of  the  events  which  gave  rise  to 
the  differences  between  the  two  Governments  did  the  United  States  fail 
to  present  ample  and  frequent  notice  of  the  nature  of  the  indirect  in- 
juries, or  of  their  inclusion  in  the  accountability^  of  Great  Britain. 

Lord  Granville  admits  that  Mr.  Johnson  proposed  the  national  claims 
in  March,  1809.  I  mentioned  them  in  my  instructions  to  Mr.  Motley,  in 
May,  1809,  and  again  in  that  of  September  of  that  year.  Although  I 
made  co  claim  or  demand  for  oither  direct  or  indirect  injuries,  I  did 
present  the  vast  national  injuries,  so  that  Lord  Clarendon,  in  his  reply, 

30  i.— n 


It      ,'B 


,':;rv:;-. 


466 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


maiiit'ested  no  diflicult.y  in  discerning  that  the  United  States  did  expect,. 
and  would  demand,  the  consideration  of  national,  indirect,  or  conse- 
quential losses. 

I  can  therefore  have  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  assertion  in  niy  in. 
struction  to  you  of  27th  February,  commented  upon  by  Lord  (Jranvillc, 
does  "accurately  represent  the  facts  as  they  are  shown  in  the  corre- 
spoiulence  between  the  two  Governments." 

Earl  Granville  endeavors  to  limit  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  claims, 
by  an  argument  based  upon  the  "  expression  *'  the  "  Alabama  claims," 
which  (he  says)  first  occurs  in  a  letter  which  he  designates.  It  may  he 
true  that  this  "  expression  "  appeared  for  the  first  time,  in  the  otticiiil 
correspondence,  in  the  letter  and  at  the  date  indicated  ;  but  His  Lord- 
ship overlooks  the  fact  that  in  this  letter  the  language  used  is  "  the  so- 
called  Alabama  claims,"  showing  evidently  the  adoi)tion,  for  conven- 
ience, of  a  then  familiar  term  in  common  use,  designating  by  a  short 
generic  name  the  whole  class  and  variety  of  claims,  for  the  various 
injuries  of  which  the  United  States  had,  at  different  times,  made  com 
plaint. 

The  question,  however,  is  not  what  was  understood  by  the  expres- 
sion "Alabama  claims,"  in  1SG7,  but  what  the  same  expression  implied 
in  1371,  when  introduced  into  the  Treaty.  It  n»ight  not  be  dillicult 
to  show  that  the  expression  had  in  18G7  acquired  a  definite  sense 
far  more  comprehensive  than  that  to  which  Earl  Granville  desires  to 
restrict  it.  It  is  impossible  to  deny  that  in  1871  it  was  as  comprehensive 
iu  signification  as  the  United  States  claim  it  to  have  been. 

The  ofiicial  correspondence  of  this  Government,  which  was  published, 
and  is  within  the  knowledge  of  Her  Majesty's  Government,  included  the 
indirect  injuries  under  the  expression  "  the  Alabama  claims."  They  wero 
prominently  put  forward  iu  the  debates  and  the  public  discussions  on 
the  rejection  of  the  Johnson-Clarendon  treaty.  The  American  press 
abounded  in  articles  setting  them  forth  as  part  of  the  "Alabama  claims." 

The  President  enumerated  them  iu  his  annual  message  to  Congress, 
in  December,  18G9. 

The  British  press,  iu  the  summer  of  18G9,  and  subsequently,  discussed 
most  earnestly  the  indirect  losses  under  the  title  of  "Alabama  claims." 

Continental  jurists  and  publicists  discussed  the  national  claims  on 
account  of  the  prolongation  of  the  war  under  the  head  of  "  Keclama- 
tions"  having  "  qu'un  rapport  mdirecf,  et  nullement  un  rapport  dired 
avec  les  depredations  reellement  commises  par  les  croiseurs." 

In  the  year  1870,  Professor  Mountague  Bernard,  subsequently  one  ot 
the  Commissioners  on  the  part  of  Her  Majesty,  and  whose  name  is 
signed  to  the  Treaty,  published  a  very  able  but  intensely  one  sided  and 
partial  defense  of  tlie  British  Government,  under  the  title  of  "A  Histori- 
cal Account  of  the  Neutrality  of  Great  Britain  during  the  American  Civil 
War."  The  XI  V^th  ehapter  of  this  work,  as  appears  in  the  table  of  con- 
tents, is  entitled  the  "Alabama  claims."  Under  this  head  he  presents 
the  demand  nuide  by  the  United  States  for  redress  for  "  the  national  as 
well  as  the  private  injuries."  Professor  Bernard  knew  the  extent  of  onr 
complaints  and  of  our  demands.  In  this  work  he  summarizes  an 
instruction  from  this  Department  to  the  Minister  of  this  country  in 
Great  Britain  as  presenting  "the  opinion  of  this  Government"  that  the 
conduct  of  England  "  had  been  a  virtual  act  of  war."  He  says,  "The 
estimate  which  the  American  Government  has  thought  fit  to  adopt  ot 
its  own  claims  *  *  *  is  not  favorable  to  a  settlement;" 
that  among  the  reasons  for  the  rejection  of  the  Convention  of  January 
14,  1869,  was  the  fact  that  it  embraced  only  the  claims  of  individuals,. 


la  did  expect,, 
ct,  or  conso- 

ion  ill  my  in- 
id  (liaiiville, 
in  the  corie- 

)f  the  cUiims, 
itrna  chiiins," 
i.  It  may  be 
n  tlie  ottlciiil 
ut  His  Lord- 
ed is  "  the  HO- 
,  for  conven- 
ig  by  a  short 
i-  the  various 
s,  made  com 

y  the  exproH- 
^ssion  implied 
»t  be  dillicult 
leftnite  sense 
lie  desires  to 
ompreheusivc 

^as  published, 
,  included  the 
"    They  were 

isciissions  on 
nericau  press 
bama  claims." 

to  Congress, 

tl}',  discussed 
lania  claims." 
lal  claims  on 
)f  "  Keclama- 
apport  direct 
•s." 

uently  one  of 

lose  name  is 

)ne- sided  and 

)f  "A  Histuri- 

merican  Civil 

table  of  con- 

1  he  i)resents 

le  national  as 

extent  of  our 

mmarizes  an 

8  country  in 

ent"  that  the 

says,  "  The 

it  to  adopt  ot 

settlement ; " 

1  of  January 

individuals,. 


CORRESPOXDEXCE    RESPECTIXO    GENEVA    ARniTRATION.      407 

and  liad  no  reference  to  those  of  the  tiro  Gorernmcnts  on  each  other,  lie 
sets  forth  that  the  President  assigned,  among  the  reasons  for  his  dis- 
approval of  that  Convention,  that  "  its  provisions  were  inade<piate  to 
provide  reparation  for  the  IJnited  States  in  'the  manner  and  to  the 
degree  to  which  he  considers  the  United  States  entitled  to  redress,"  and 
that  the  I*re.Hident  further  declared  that  he  was  not  then  (I8(>9)  "pre- 
pared to  speak  of  the  reparation  which  he  thinks  due  by  the  British 
Government  for  the  lanjer  account  of  the  rast  national  injuries  it  has 
inflicted  on  the  United  States.''  And,  further,  that  this  (lovernment 
held  that  "all  these  are  subjects  for  future  consideration,  which,  when 
the  time  for  action  shall  wwc,  the  I'resideiit  will  consitler  with  sincere 
and  earnest  desire  that  all  differences  between  the  two  nations  may  be 
adjusted  amicably  and  compatibly  with  the  honor  of  each  and  to  the 
promotion  of  future  concord  between  them." 

With  this  knowledge  of  the  demand  for  "  national"'  redress;  that  the 
American  opinion  regarded  the  conduct  of  Great  Britain  as  "a  virtual 
act  of  war;"  with  the  ex|)ressed  opinion  that  the  American  estimate  of 
its  claims  was  extravagant ;  with  the  knowledge  that  a  jirevious  Con- 
vention had  recently  been  rejected,  becau.se,  among  other  reasoiLS,  "  it 
embraced  only  the  claims  of  individuals,  and  had  no  reference  to  those 
of  the  (jovernment ;  that  the  President  expected  reparation  for  the  vast 
national  injuries'^  which  Great  Britain  had  inflicted  on  the  United  States, 
and  that  lie  "  held  all  these  subjects  for  future  consideration  when  the  time 
for  action  shall  come  ;"  when  "  the  time  for  action"  did  come,  Professor 
Bernard,  bringing  this  knowledge,  appeared*  as  one  of  Her  Majesty's 
Commissioners  to  treat  on  these  very  subjects. 

It  would  be  doing  great  injustice  to  the  other  eminent  and  distin- 
guished statesmen  and  diplomatists  who  were  his  associates  on  the  Brit- 
ish side  of  the  Oommissi(m,  to  entertain  the  belief  that  they  brought 
less  knowledge  on  these  points  than  was  held  by  Professor  Bernard. 

I  hold  that  enough  has  been  shown  to  establish  that  the  British  Com- 
missioners who  negotiated  the  Treaty  did  not  enter  upon  the  important 
duty  committed  to  them  in  ignorance  of  the  nature  or  of  the  extent 
of  the  claims  which  the  American  Government  intended  to  present  and 
to  have  settled. 

Earl  Granville's  effort  to  limit  and  confine  the  meaning  of  the  expres- 
sion "  the  Alabama  claims"  might  induce  one  who  had  not  the  text  of 
the  Treaty  at  hand  to  suppose  that  the  reference  to  the  Tribunal  of 
Arbitration  was  limited  by  the  restricted  meaning  which  he  attempts 
to  give  to  the  phrase  "Alabama  claims."  But  the  words  of  the  Treaty 
impose  no  such  limitation ;  they  are  that,  "  Whereas  differences  have 
ttvisen  between  the  Government  of  the  United  States  and  the  Gov- 
erument  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  and  still  exist,  growing  out  of  the  acts 
committed  by  the  several  vessels,  which  h.ave  given  rise  to  the  claims 
genericalJy  known  as  the  'Alabama  claims.'  Now,  in  order  to  remove  and 
adjust  all  complaints  and  claims  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  and  to 
provide  for  the  speedy  settlement  of  such  claims  which  are  not  admitted 
by  Her  Majesty's  Government,  the  High  Contracting  Parties  agree  that 
all  the  said  claims  growing  out  of  the  acts  committed  by  the  aforesaid 
vessels,  and  generically  known  as  the  'Alabama  claims,'  be  referred,"  &c. 

All  the  claims  growing  out  of  the  acts  committed,  &c.,  are  the  subject 
of  reference. 

That  which  grows  out  of  an  act  is  not  the  act  itself;  it  is  something 
consequent  upon  or  incident  to  the  act — the  result  of  the  art;  and 
whether  the  claims  to  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  now  takes  ex- 


I 


Im 


■1 

11 

H 

p 

1 

1 

^t 

f|- 

H 

mMi 

468 


TREATY    OV    WASHINGTON. 


ception  bo  tlio  results  of  the  lujts  coiumittod  by  the  vessels  is,  in  the 
opinion  of  this  (fovermnont,  for  the  «le(!isioti  of  the  cVrbitnitors. 

After  tnc  positive  ih'cliiratioii  of  Esirl  Oranville  that  it  "  neveV  could 
biivc  been  expected"  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  wonhl  accept  the 
proposition  of  ])aynient  of  a  gross  sum  in  satisfaction  of  all  our  claitns, 
it  is  apparent  that  an  exposition,  at  this  tiaie,  of  the  reasons  whicili  led 
the  President  to  hojjc  that  tin'  nnncablc  settlement  which  he  proposed, 
conjded  with  the  siiy<;estion  of  larjfe  pecuniary  concessions  on  our  pait, 
would  be  made,  will  not  tend  to  remove  the  dirterences  now  existiii;; 
between  the  two  (lovernments  respecting  the  jurisdiction  of  the  (leneva 
Tribunal. 

I  as  deejdy  iegr<'t  that  Her  IVIajesty's  Government  cannot  understand 
upon  what  that  liop«i  was  founded  as  I  deplore  what  now  appears  to 
have  been  the  jjredetei'mination  of  Her  ^Majesty's  Government  to  reject 
every  proposal  whi(di  involved  an  adnussion  of  any  liability  on  the  i>art 
of  (Jlreat  liritain. 

Another  proposal,  having  no  similitude  to  the  previous  one  submitted 
by  us,  was  made  by  Her  Majesty's  Commissioners.  They  accepted,  with- 
out objection,  the  American  statement  of  the  subject-matter  in  dispute, 
as  it  was  made,  and  they  proposed,  instead  of  the  ''amicable  settlement" 
ottered  by  the  American  Commissioners,  "  a  mode  of  settlement"  by  arbi- 
tration, a  litigation,  a  lawsuit  in  which  Great  Britain  should  deny  all  lia- 
bility to  the  United  States  for  all  the  injuries  complained  of.  After  sundry 
woditications,  their  proposal  was  accei)ted  by  the  United  States,  who 
were  thus  compelled  to  bring  before  the  Tribunal  the  same  presentment 
of  their  losses  which  they  had  lai«l  before  Her  Majesty's  Commission. 
The  subject-matter  of  the  submission  made  by  the  American  "  Case"  to  tlio 
Geneva  Tribunal  ditteis  in  no  particular  from  that  which  was  accepted  as 
the  statement  of  the  American  claims,  without  objection  on  the  part 
of  the  British  members  of  the  Joint  High  Commission. 

The  Tresident  is  now,  for  the  first  time,  authentically  informed  that 
a  waiver  by  this  Government  of  the  claims  for  indirect  losses  which 
were  formally  presented  was,  in  the  opinion  of  Her  Majesty's  Govern 
ment,  also  contained  in  this  second  proposal,  was  a  necessary  condition 
of  the  success  of  the  negotiation,  and  that  "it  was  iu  the  full  belief 
that  this  waiver  had  been  made  that  the  British  Government  ratified 
the  Treaty."  Such  a  relin(piishment  of  a  part  of  the  claims  of  this 
Government  is  now  made  by  Earl  Granville  the  pivot  and  real  issue  of 
the  negotiation.  He  appears  to  imply  that  the  price  paid  by  Her  Majes- 
ty's Government  to  obtain  that  waiver  was  the  concessiou  referred  to 
in  His  Lordshii)'s  note,  and  whi(di,  he  says,  would  not  have  been  expected 
by  this  Government  "  if  the  United  States  were  still  to  bo  at  liberty  to 
insist  upon  all  the  extreme  demands  which  they  had  at  any  time  sug- 
gested or  brought  forward." 

Here,  again,  is  a  clear  intimation  that  Her  Majesty's  Government 
were  not  iu  ignorance  of  the  character  of  our  demands,  but  that  they 
were  well  ''X«oich,"  and  that  the  (lonsideratiou  to  be  paid  for  their 
waiver  (whether  real  or  iuuiginary)  had  been  deliberately  determined. 

Is  it  not  surprising  that  such  "extreme  demands"  should  be  waived 
on  the  one  baud,  and  such  "concessions"  made  on  the  other,  without  a 
word  of  reference  or  suggestion  that  the  one  was  conditioned  on  the 
other! 

You  can  bear  witness  that  at  no  time  during  the  deliberations  of  the 
Joint  High  Commission  was  such  an  idea  put  forward  by  Her  M.ajesty's 
Commissioners. 

The  Protocols  are  utterly  silent  on  the  subject. 


CORHKHPONMKNCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    AHHITRA  llnN'.      4G9 


our  ciaiins, 


That  no  such  loliiKinislinu'iit  whh  incorpoiatrd  into  tli<^  text  of  tho 
Treaty  is  c^lear  enoii},'li.  Why  not,  if  thus  dccnu'd  at  tlie  time,  hy  llcr 
Majesty's  Govoninient,  the  hinj;e  and  essential  part  of  tl»e  Tr«'aty  ;' 

What  are  termed  tlie  "■eonecssions"  on  the  part  oi"  (ireat  Britain  ap- 
pear in  the  Treaty.  If  the  reliiKpiishnient  by  the  l'nite«l  States  of  a 
part  of  tlieir  ehiini  was  the  eciuivalent  tlierefor,  wliy  is  not  tinit  set 
forth?  Throu<{liout  tlie  Treaty  are  to  be  i\n\m\  reeiprocal  };rants  or 
concessions,  each  accompanied  by  its  Reciprocal  et|uivalent. 

How  could  it  happen  that  so  impcntant  <i  feature  of  tlie  ne^jotiatiou 
as  this  alleged  waiver  is  now  rejm'sented  to  be  was  left  to  infeience, 
or  to  arj^nnient  fiom  Intentions  never  expressed  to  the  Commission  or 
the  Government  of  the  I'nited  States  until  after  the  Treaty  wassi;;ned  ? 

The  am])litudo  and  the  comprehensive  force  of  the  lirst  article  (or  the 
Krantinj;  clause)  of  tlui  Treaty  did  not  escape  the  critical  attention  of 
Her  Majesty's  Commissioners ;  but  was  any  etlbrt  made  to  limit  or 
reduce  the  scope  of  the  submission  or  to  exclude  the  indirect  claims'? 

You  were  informed  in  my  instruction  of  February  27  that  this  tJov- 
erninent  does  not  consider  the  Treaty  as  of  itself  a  settlement,  but  as 
an  agreement  as  to  the  lUode  of  reaching  a  settlement.  To  that  opinion 
the  President  adheres.  Jle  cannot  admit  that  the  treaty  provision  for 
a  settlement  is  in  substance  or  legal  ett'ect  the  same  as  the  "amicable 
settlement"  spoken  of  in  the  conference  held  on  the  8th  of  March,  as  is 
set  forth  in  the  Trotocol.  The  diflerences  between  the  two  stand  out 
clear  and  broad.  One  would  have  closed  up,  at  once  and  forever,  the 
longstanding  controversy  ;  the  other  makes  necessary  the  interposition 
of  friendly  Governments,  a  prolonged,  disagreeable,  and  exi)ensive  liti- 
gation with  a  powerful  nation,  carricl  on  at  a  great  distan  )  from  the 
seat  of  thisGovernment,  and  under  great  disadvantages ;  ano,  i.iorethaii 
all,  it  compels  the  re-appearance  of  events  and  of  facts,  tor  the  keeping 
of  which  in  lifeless  obscurity  the  United  States  were  willing  to  sacrifice 
much,  as  they  indicted  iu  their  prolfer  to  accept  a  gross  sum  in  satis- 
i'action  of  all  <;laims. 

The  United  States  can  assent  to  no  line  of  argument  which  endeavors 
to  transfer  the  waiver  of  claims  for  indirect  injuries  (implied  from  their 
withholding  the  estimate  of  theamountof  sucliclaims)  from  the  rejected 
proposal  of  the  American  ('ommissionera  forasettlenient,  "  aTamiable," 
by  the  Joint  High  Commission,  and  to  incorporate  it  "sub  silentio"  iu 
the  arbitration  proposed  by  the  British  Commissioners.  The  offer  of 
this  Government  to  withhold  any  part  of  its  demand  exi)ired  and  ceased 
to  exist  when  the  acceptance  of  the  proposal  which  contained  tl'e  offer 
was  refused.  It  was  never  offered  except  in  ccmnection  with  the  pro- 
posal that  the  Joint  High  Commission  should  agree  upon  a  gross  sum 
to  be  paid  in  satisfaction  of  all  the  claims,  and  then  it  was  repelled.  It 
was  never  again  suggested  from  any  quarter.  It  is  impossible  for  Her 
Majesty's  Government  to  fix  upon  a  moment  of  time  when  there  was  an 
agreement  of  the  contracting  piuties  respecting  such  a  waiver  as  that 
to  which  Earl  Granville  refers. 

To  the  suggestion  of  doubt  contained  in  the  note  of  Lord  Granville, 
whether  "it  would  be  advantageous  to  either  country"  to  treat  claims 
of  the  nature  of  those  now  under  discussion  "  as  proper  subjects  of  in- 
ternational arbitration,"  I  can  only  reply  that,  for  all  practical  purposes, 
argument  upon  this  question  is  suspen  led,  inasmuch  as,  in  our  judg- 
ment, Great  Britain  and  the  United  S  xtes  have  bound  themselves 
respectively  by  the  Treaty  to  make  such    ubmission. 

The  first  Article  of  that  solemn  instrument  recites  and  declares  that 
"aW  the  said  claims  growing  out  of  acts  committed  by  the  aforesaid  ves- 


470 


TREATY   OF   WASHINGTON. 


sels,  and  generically  known  as  the  'Alabama  claims,'  shall  be  referred  to 
a  Tribunal  of  Arbitration."  Earl  Granville  admits  that  the  foregoing 
are  "  the  words  in  which  the  subject-matter  of  the  reference  to  arbitra- 
tion agreed  upon  is  defined." 

If  the  "Case"  of  the  United  Stat-S,  as  presented  at  Geneva,  contain 
claims  not  "  growing  out  of  acts  committed"'  by  the  aforesaid  vessels, 
then  such  claims  are  not  within  the  reference,  and  must  be  so  adjudged. 
In  like  manner,  if  any  of  the  claims  set  forth  in  the  American  Case 
were  not,  at  the  date  of  the  correspondence  hetiveen  *S7r  Edward  Thornton 
andmyself,  (in  January  and  February,  1871,)  "generically  known"  as  part 
of  the  Alaoama  claims,  they  are  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Tri- 
bunal, and  must  be  so  adjudged. 

The  President  admits,  unreservedly,  that  every  item  of  the  demand 
presented  at  Geneva  must,  within  the  meaning  of  the  Treaty,  be  a 
"claim;"  that  it  must  be  one  of  the  claims  "  generically  known  as  the 
Alabama  claims,"  and  that  it  nuist  "grow  out  of"  the  acts  committed 
by  the  vessels  which  have  given  rise  to  the  claims  thus  generically 
known. 

Which  of  the  claims  presented  by  the  United  States  at  Geneva  an 
swers  these  requirements,  and  is  well  founded  according  to  tiie  true  in 
tent  and  meaning  of  the  Treaty,  is  not  to  be  determined  by  either  party 
litigant,  but  is  a  question  for  tlie  Tribunal  to  decide. 

I  have  already'  referred  to  the  comprehensiveness  which  the  expression 
"Alabama  claims"  had  acquired  when  it  was  used  in  the  correspondence, 
and  was  incorporated  in  the  Treaty  in  1871. 

Lord  Granville  says:  "The  word  f/cncricalli/  naturally  signifies  that 
all  the  claims  intended  were  ejusdon  generis.''^  1 1  is  argument  would 
require  them  to  be  ejusdcm  speclei. 

The  word  was  designedly  used  to  embrace  a  "  genus" — a  class  of 
claims  divided  into  several  species.  "  CI  en  us  est  id,  quod,  sui  similes 
communione  quadam  specie  autcni  dijf'crcntes,  duas  ant  jdures  complec- 
titur  parties." 

The  direct  losses  from  destructitm  of  projjcrty  are  of  one  species ; 
they  differ  in  dates,  localities,  and  amounts;  they  do  not  differ  in  char- 
acter or  in  "  species." 

Referring  to  my  remark  in  the  note  to  you  of  27th  February,  that  the 
indirect  injuries  are  covered  by  one  of  the  alternatives  of  the  Treaty, 
Earl  Granville  does  not  perceive  what  "alternative"  in  the  Treaty  covers 
these  claims. 

This  Government  is  of  the  opinion  that  they  are  covered  by  the 
alternative  i>ower  given  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration,  of  awarding  a 
sum  in  gross,  in  case  it  finds  that  Great  Britain  has  failed  to  fulfill  any 
duty,  or  of  remitting  to  a  Board  of  Assessors  the  determination  of  the 
validity  of  claims  ]uesented  to  them,  and  the  amounts  to  be  paid. 

By  the  Article  VII,  "in  case  the  Tribunal  find  that  Great  Britain  has 
failed  to  fulfill  any  duty  or  duties  as  aforesaid,  it  may,  if  it  think  proper, 
proceed  to  award  a  sum  in  gross  to  be  paid  by  Great  Britain  to  the 
United  States  for  all  the  claims  referred  to  it." 

If  Cheat  Britain  be  found  by  the  Tribunal  to  have  failed  of  any  of  its 
duties,  it  is  clearly  within  the  power  of  the  Tribunal,  in  its  estimate  of 
the  sum  to  be  awarded,  to  consider  all  the  claims  referred  to  it,  w  hether 
they  be  for  direct  or  for  indirect  injuries ;  there  is  no  limitation  to  their 
discretion  and  no  restriction  to  any  class  or  description  of  claims. 

The  United  States  are  "prepared  to  accept  theaw^ard,  whether  favor 
able  or  unfavorable  to  their  views."  They  are  confident  "  that  it  shall 
be  just." 


,i:ii::a,- 


awardinff  a 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.      471 

Earl  Granville  refers  to  the  allusion  made  in  ray  instruction  to  you 
of  27th  February,  to  the  presentation  by  Her  Majesty's  Agent  to  the 
Claims  Commission  now  sitting  in  this  city  of  a  claim  for  a  part  of  the 
Confederate  cotton  loan,  the  express  exclusion  of  which  from  the  coh- 
sideration  of  the  Commission  his  Lordship  admits  l:ad  been  mutually 
agreed  upon  in  the  negotiations  which  preceded  the  appointment  of 
the  High  Commissioners,  and  was  provided  for  by  the  wording  of  the 
Treaty. 

He  thinks,  however,  that  there  is  no  analogy  between  the  inoceedings 
before  the  Washington  Commission  and  those  before  the  (leneva 
Tribunal;  such,  at  least,  appears  to  be  the  inference  to  which  his  argu- 
ment is  intended  to  lead. 

He  cites  from  Article  XIV  the  power  given  to  the  Claims  Commis- 
sioners "  to  decide  in  each  case  whether  anj*  claim  has  or  has  not  been 
duly  made,  preferred,  and  laid  before  them,  either  wholly  or  to  anj'^  ex- 
tent, according  to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  Treaty,"  and  he 
adds  that  "  no  similar  words"  are  used  as  to  the  powers  of  the  Geneva 
Tribunal. 

It  is  true  that  "no  similar  words"  are  used,  but  his  Lordship  has  over- 
looked the  nuich  broader  and  more  comprehensive  i)owers  given  to  the 
(ieneva  Arbitrators  by  the  words  in  Article  II  authorizing  them  "  to 
examine  and  decide  all  questions  that  shall  be  laid  before  them  on  the 
part  of  the  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  of  Her  Britannic 
Majesty,  respectively." 

These  grants  of  power  are  to  be  taken  in  connection  with  the  subject- 
matter  referred. 

The  subjectnmtter  of  the  reference  to  the  Washington  Commission  is 
the  claims  for  alleged  wrongful  acts  by  either  Government  upon  the 
nersons  or  property  of  individuals  or  of  corporations,  citizens  or  sub- 
jects of  the  other  Government. 

Articles  XII  and  X IV  prescribe  certaiji  requirements  as  to  the  man- 
ner, the  channel,  and  the  time  of  presentation  of  the  claims  to  be  exam- 
ined. 

The  words  "made,  prepared,  and  laid  before"  have  no  possible  refer- 
ence to  the  nature,  the  character,  or  the  ground-work  of  the  claim,  and 
can  be  construed  oidy  as  applying  to  each  claim,  which  is  a  proper  sub- 
ject of  reference,  the  test  of  the  requirements  of  the  Treaty,  with  respect 
to  the  manner,  the  channel,  and  the  time  of  its  being  brought  before 
the  Commission. 

The  subject-matter  referred  to  the  Arbitrators  at  Geneva  is  "all  the 
claims  growing  out  of  acts  committed  l)y  the  vessels  which  have  given 
rise  to  the  claims  generically  known  as  'the  Alabama  claims,'  in  order 
to  remove  and  adjust  all  complaints  and  claims  on  the  part  of  the 
United  Htates,  and  to  j^rovide  for  the  speedy  settlement  of  such 
claims." 

In  connection  with  such  claims,  and  with  the  purpose  expressed  in 
the  Treaty,  the  Arbitrators  have  the  broad  grant  of  power  to  "examine 
and  decide  all  questions  that  shall  be  laid  before  them  on  the  part  of" 
either  Government. 

If  Lord  Granville  can  find  in  the  words  he  has  quote«l  power  in  the 
Washington  Commission  to  determine  whether  or  not  a  claim  i>resented 
is  within  its  jurisdiction,  it  will  be  difficult  to  deny  the  same  power  to  a 
Tribunal  to  which  the  more  comprehensive  grant  is  ma<le  in  the  words 
nf  the  Article  II. 

The  allusion  in  my  instruction  of  L'Ttli  February  to  the  Confederate 
cotton  loan  was  to  the  fact  that  a  claim,  one  of  a  class  for  whose  exclu- 


I    .,£1: 


472 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


sion  his  Lordship  adniits  that  expressions  had  been  used  in  the  nvgotia- 
tious  which  i)receded  the  appointment  of  the  Higli  Commission,  and 
were  also  used  in  the  Treaty,  was  presented  by  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment, (for  by  the  Treaty  a  chiim  can  only  be  laid  before  the  Conunissiou 
on  the  part  of  the  Government,)  and  that,  when  the  United  States 
remonstrated  and  requested  the  British  Government  to  withdraw  the 
claim,  their  remonstrance  was  unheeded,  and  the  chum  was  pressed  to 
argument;  that  the  United  States  demurred  before  the  Commission  to. 
its  jurisdiction,  and  the  decision  of  the  Commission  disposed  of  what 
might  have  been  a  question  of  embarrassment. 

The  claim  was  put  forward  as  a  test  case,  and  was  one  of  a  ('la«^> 
involving  upwards  of  fifty  millions  of  dollars. 

My  allusion  to  it  was  not  in  the  nature  of  a  complaint  of  its  presenta- 
tion. EarlGrauvillehaskindly  furnished  certain  dates.  From  Iiis  note 
we  find  that  it  was  on  the  21st  November  that  he  learned  that  the  United 
States  remonstrated  against  the  presentation  of  this  class  of  claims;  that 
prior  to  the  Cth  December  he  had  ascertained  from  Sir  Edward  Thorn- 
ton (who  it  is  known  h.ad  left  England  on  his  return  to  the  United  States 
as  early  as  the  28th  day  of  November)  that  claims  of  this  class  were  intended 
to  be  excluded,  and  that  the  Treaty  contained  words  inserted  for  that 
object ;  that  the  remonstrance  and  request  of  the  United  States  were 
not  considered  by  Her  Majesty's  Government  until  the  11th  of  Decem- 
ber; that  a  decision  thereon  was  not  made  until  the  14th,  (on  which 
day,  I  may  add,  the  Agent  and  Counsel  of  the  British  Government 
brought  the  case  to  trial  in  Washington,)  and  that  the  announcement 
of  the  decision  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  was  not  made  to  you  until 
the  16th  December,  two  days  after  the  case  had  been  adjudged. 

These  dates  illustrate  my  allusion  to  this  case.  The  United  States 
calmly  submitted  to  the  Commission  the  decision  of  its  jurisdiction 
over  a  claim  involving  in  its  principle  the  question  of  liability  for  many 
millions  of  dollars,  which,  it  is  admitted,  hail  been  expressly  agreed 
to  be  withheld  from  the  province  of  the  Commission,  and  thereby 
avoided  jeoparding  the  Treaty,  and  the  serious  embarrassment  w'  ich 
might  have  resulted  from  their  undertiilving  to  become  the  judges  in 
their  own  behalf. 

I  cannot  pass  over  without  notice  the  allusion  made  by  Earl  Gran- 
ville to  your  presence  in  the  House  of  Lords  on  the  occasion  of  the 
debate  of  the  12th  of  June  last,  and  the  fact  that  you  did  not  at  any 
time  challenge  either  of  the  conflicting  interpretations  of  the  Treaty 
expressed  on  that  occasion.  I  may  add  that  similar  rertections  npou 
the  conduct  of  this  Government  in  tliat  relation,  uttered  by  i)rominent 
statesmen  and  newspapers  in  Great  Brit  lin,  have  been  made  public, 
and  thus  brought  to  my  notice. 

To  all  of  these  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  President  does  not  hold 
it  as  any  part  of  his  duty  to  interfere  with  the  differences  in  the  Par- 
liament, or  the  public  i)ress  of  Great  Britain,  respecting  the  true  con- 
struction of  the  Treaty.  The  utterances  in  Parliament  ?ire  privileged; 
the  discussion  in  that  high  body  is  looked  upon  by  us  as  a  domestic  one, 
of  which  this  Government  has  no  proper  cognizance.  If  it  is  bound  to 
take  notice,  it  has  the  right  to  remonstrate. 

To  concede  either  to  a  foreign  State  would  be,  on  the  part  of  a  Par- 
liamentary Government,  the  abandonment  of  the  independence  whicii 
is  its  foundation  and  its  great  security  and  pride. 

Had  you  interfered,  therefore,  either  to  remonstrate  or  to  demand 
explanation,  you  would  have  exposed  yourself  and  your  Government 
to  the  very  just  rebuke  which  the  United  States  have  had  occasion  to 


^mm 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION.      473 


igno- 


admiuister  to  diplomatic  agents  of  foreign  Governments,  who,  in 
ranee  or  in  disregard  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  a  Constitutional 
Government  with  an  independent  legislature,  have  asked  explanations 
from  this  Government  concerning  the  debates  and  proceedings  of  Con- 
gress, or  of  the  communications  by  the  President  to  that  body. 

You  had  a  right  to  assume  that  if  Her  Majesty's  Government  desired 
any  official  information  from  you  or  your  Government  respecting  the 
Treaty,  oi  desired  to  convey  any  information  to  you  or  to  your  Govern- 
ment, they  would  signify  as  much  in  the  usual  forms  of  diplomatic  inter- 
course, as  was  done  by  Lord  Granville  in  his  note  to  you  of  February  3. 
Certain  it  is  that  it  would  have  been  in  violation  of  recognized  diplo- 
matic proprieties  had  you,  on  the  occasion  referred  to,  taken  sides  with 
either  of  the  opposing  views  of  the  Treaty  uttered  on  that  occasion  in 
Parliament. 

Further  than  this,  it  appears  to  me  that  the  i)rinciple8  of  English 
and  American  law  (and  they  are  substantially  the  same)  regarding  the 
construction  of  statutes  and  of  treaties  and  of  written  instruments 
generally  would  preclude  the  seeking  of  evidence  of  intent  citside 
the  instrument  itself.  It  might  be  a  painful  trial  on  which  to  enter,  in 
seeking  the  opinions  and  recollections  of  parties,  to  bring  into  conflict 
the  differing  expectations  of  those  who  were  engaged  in  the  negotiation 
of  an  instrument. 

While  the  United  St.ates  have  nothing  to  fear  from  departing  from  the 
eminently  just  rule  of  law  to  which  allusion  has  been  made,  it  abstains 
from  such  departure. 

Very  much  of  the  matter  so  elaborately  and  ingeniously  presented  in 
the  memoranda  attached  to  the  note  of  Earl  Granville  could  be  iitly  and 
appropriately  addressed  by  the  British  Government  to  the  Tribunal 
which  is  to  pass  upon  the  points  presented  therein.  It  would  require 
amplification,  if  not  correction  of  statement,  to  make  it  present  all  the 
facts  essential  to  a  correct  judgment,  and  might  require  a  reply  before 
that  Tribunal.  It  would  certainly  require  explanation  as  to  many  of  its 
presentations,  and  its  logic  would  be  denied ;  but  it  does  not  seem  to 
require  a  reply  from  me  in  the  form  of  diplomatic  correspondence. 

As  to  what  is  contained  in  Part  III  of  that  Memorandum,  I  repeat  in 
substance  what  I  mentioned  in  my  note  to  you  on  this  subject,  of  27th 
February,  that  the  indirect  losses  of  this  Government  by  reason  of  the 
inculpated  cruisers  are  set  forth  in  the  American  ''  Case"  as  they  were 
submitted  to  the  Joint  Iligh  Commission  in  the  first  discussion  of  the 
claims  on  March  8,  and  stand  in  the  Protocol  approved  May  4.  They 
were  presented  at  Geneva,  not  as  claims  for  which  a  specific  demand  was 
made,  but  as  losses  and  injuries  consequent  upon  the  acts  complained 
of,  and  necessarily  to  be  taken  into  equitable  consideration  in  a  final 
settlement  and  adjudication  of  all  the  differences  submitted  to  the  Tri- 
bunal. The  decision  of  Avhat  is  equitable  in  the  premises,  the  United 
States,  sincerely  and  without  reservation,  surrender  to  the  arbitrament 
designated  by  the  Treaty. 

What  the  rights,  duties,  and  true  interests  of  both  the  contending 
nations,  and  of  all  nations,  demand  shall  be  the  extent  and  the  measure 
of  liability  and  damages  under  the  Treaty,  is  a  matter  for  the  supreme 
determination  of  the  Tribunal  established  thereby. 

Should  that  august  Tribunal  decide  that  a  State  is  not  liable  for  the 
indirect  or  consequential  results  of  an  siccidental  or  unintentional  viola- 
tion of  its  neutral  obligations,  the  United  States  will  unhesitatingly 
accept  the  decision. 

Should  it,  on  the  other  hand,  decide  that  Great  Britain  is  liable  to  this 


i. 


re 


, .  '■  ^1 

.  {  i^file 

■■'OT 

474 


TREATY   OF   WASHINGTON. 


Government  for  such  consequential  results,  they  have  that  full  faith  in 
British  observance  of  its  engagements  to  expect  a  compliance  with  the 
judgment  of  the  Tribunal  which  a  solemn  Treaty  between  the  two  Pow- 
ers has  created  in  order  to  remove  and  adjust  all  complaints  and  claims 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States. 

To  the  judgment  of  the  Tribunal  when  pronounced  the  United  States 
will,  as  they  have  pledged  their  faith,  implicitly  bow.    They  confidently 
expect  the  same  submission  on  the  part  of  the  great  nation  with  which 
they  entered  into  such  solemn  obligations. 
I  am,  &C.J 

HAMILTON  FlSn. 


No.  17. 


No.  198. 


Sir; 


General  i^'chcncl-  to  Mr.  Fi,sh. 
[Extract.] 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 
London,  Ajyril  IS,  1872.     (Received  April  39.) 

*  *  *  * 


I  spent  some  time  with  his  Lordship,  occupying  mjself  principally  in 
the  eudepvor  to  make  him  understand  how  little  proper  comprehension 
there  is  here  of  the  state  ox  public  feeling  and  opinion  in  the  United 
States.  They  believe,  and  the  Government  has  seemed  to  share  in  the 
impression,  that  there  is  a  very  general  desire  among  our  people,  includ- 
ing the  most  of  our  prominent  men,  that  the  claims  for  indirect  damages 
should  be  withdrawn,  and  the  Arbitrators  not  asked  to  consider  or  decide 
on  them.  I  explained  to  Lord  Granville  that  much  of  this  misappre- 
hension comes  from  the  course  of  the  English  press,  giving  prominence 
as  it  does  to  every  article,  letter,  or  publication  of  any  sort  coming  from 
America  or  purporting  to  be  written  by  an  American  taking  the  British 
view  of  the  question,  and  studiously  excluding  all  that  would  tend  to 
prove  the  almost  entire  unanimity  of  our  i)ress  and  citizens  in  support 
of  the  position  taken  by  their  Government.  1  warned  him  against  trust- 
ing to  the  correspondence  and  writing  of  certain  persons  and  jouruals 
that  I  named,  as  affording  any  true  exposition  of  the  general  sentiment 
in  our  country.  And  I  represented  to  him  that  both  the  Government  and 
citizens  were  much  more  generally  concerned  to  have  all  claims  of  every 
sort,  whether  regarded  as  substantial  or  shadowy,  go  to  the  Arbitrators 
to  be  decided  upon,  so  that  every  existing  complaint  and  grievance  might 
be  blotted  out  and  wiped  away  forever,  than  they  were  troubled  about 
either  the  character  or  amount  of  the  award  to  be  rendered  by  the  Tri- 
bunal. 

What  was  most  especially  desired,  I  assured  him,  was  that  a  decision 
of  the  whole  question  and  extent  of  the  liability  of  a  neutral  should  be 
arrived  at,  so  that  the  rule  and  the  law  for  all  might  be  known  in  the 
future. 

Indeed,  among  other  things  1  told  Lord  Granville  frankly  that  I  re- 
gretted to  have  to  inform  him  there  were  not  a  few  of  our  best  peoi)le 
who  were  growing  so  dissatisfied  with  the  position  which  Her  Majesty's 
>Government  weia  now  assuming,  that  they  were  beginning  to  say  that 
Great  Britain,  they  supposed,  must  be  permitted  to  lake  her  course  and 
•  annul  the  Treaty,  in  which  event  the  United  States  could  surmise  such 
.an  unhappy  end  of  our  labors  and  hopes  as  well  as  this  Government. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    CfENEVA   ARBITRATION.      475 

All  I  said,  and  there  was  a  great  deal  of  it,  was  expressed  and  received 
ia  the  most  friendly  manner,  and  helped  to  give  us,  I  hope,  a  better  mu- 
tual understanding,  whether  it  may  have  or  not  any.  other  effect  or  result. 

His  Lordship,  I  am  more  thcan  ever  satisfied,  is  sincerely  and  painfully 
earnest  in  his  desire  to  save  the  Treaty,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  this 

is  equally  true  of  other  miuisters. 

****** 


I  have.  &c.. 


KOBT.  C.  HCIIENCK. 


Ko.  18. 

Mr.  Fish  to  General  Sehenck. 
[Extract.] 

^0. 184.J  Depaktment  op  State, 

^ya,shiH(Jton,  April  23,  1872. 

Sir  :  It  is  unnecessary  now  to  consider  what  action  this  Government 
might  have  taken  with  regard  to  the  present  phase  of  the  Alabama 
claims  question  had  the  British  Government  calmly  presented  their 
views  with  respect  to  their  construction  of  the  Treaty  in  relation  to 
what  are  now  familiarly  called  "  the  indirect  claims."  The  public  dis- 
cussion which  they  have  thought  proper  to  excite,  and  the  discourteous 
tone  and  minatory  intimations  of  some  of  the  utterances  of  the  ministry, 
impose  upon  the  United  States  a  different  line  of  action  from  that 
which  might  have  been  adopted  in  response  to  a  calm  presentation  of  a 
different  construction  of  the  Treaty  from  that  which  is  entertained  by 
this  Government,  and  of  the  apprehensions  which  the  imagination  of 
the  British  public  seem  to  entertain  of  the  possible  magnitude  of  the 
award  that  may  be  made  for  that  class  of  the  claims. 

Not  doubting  the  correctness  of  the  position  which  this  Government 
has  occupied,  and  fully  convinced  that  the  "  indirect  claims"  Avero  not 
eliminated  from  the  general  complaint  of  the  United  States,  I  am  not 
disposed  to  question  the  sincerity  of  those  who  hold  to  the  opposite 
view. 

This  Government  is  very  anxious  to  maintain  the  Treaty  and  to  pre- 
serve the  example  which  it  affords  of  a  peaceful  mode  of  settling  inter- 
national differences  of  the  very  gravest  character. 

Neither  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  nor,  so  fjir  as  I  can 
judge,  any  considerable  number  of  the  .^  merican  people,  have  ever  at- 
tached much  importance  to  the  so  called  "indirect  claims,"  or  have  ever 
expected  or  desired  any  award  of  damages  on  their  account. 

They  were  advanced  during  the  occurrence  of  the  events  of  the 
cruisers'  depredations,  and  pending  the  excitement  and  the  irritation 
caused  by  the  conduct  of  Great  Biitaiu.  They  became  more  prominently 
associated  with  the  case  during  the  discussions  attendant  upon  the 
Johnson-Clarendon  Treaty,  and  its  rejection  ;  and  it  was  impossible  for 
the  American  Commissioners  not  to  lay  them  as  part  of  the  American 
complaint,  and  as  forming  part  of  the  American  claims,  before  the  Joint 
Ui}?h  Commission. 

That  they  were  not  excepted  to  by  the  British  Commissioners  is  no 
iault  of  this  Government. 

Being  left  in  the  complaint,  and  set  forth,  unchallenged,  in  the  Pro- 


476 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


tocol,  (signed  only  four  days  before  the  signing  of  the  Treaty,  and  wboii 
the  Treaty  was  completed  in  form  and  substance,  and  was  being  en- 
grossed for  signature,)  tbey  could  not  be  omitted  from  the  "  Case." 

*  #  *  *  *  * 

Tlie  United  States  now  desire  no  pecuniary  award  on  their  ac"'^-  at. 
You  will  not  fail  to  have  noticed  that  through  the  whole  of  r^^  *.orre 
spondence  we  ask  no  damages  on  their  account;  we  only  desire  a  judg- 
ment which  will  remove  them  for  all  future  time  as  a  cause  of  differenc(i 
between  the  two  Governments.  In  our  opinion  they  have  not  been  dis- 
posed of,  and  unless  disposed  of,  in  some  way,  they  v.ill  remain  to  be 
brought  up  at  some  future  time  to  the  disturbance  of  the  harmony  of 
the  two  Governments. 

The  United  States  are  sincere  in  desiring  a  "tabula  rasa"  on  this 
Alabama  question,  and  therefore  they  desire  a  judgment  upon  them  by 

the  Geneva  Tribunal. 

*  *  #  *  *  *  * 

In  the  correspondence,  I  have  gone  as  far  as  prudence  would  allow  in 
intimating  that  we  neither  desiretl  or  expected  any  pecuniary  award, 
and  that  we  should  be  content  with  an  award  that  a  State  is  not  liable 
in  pecunifiry  damages  for  the  indirect  results  of  a  failure  lo  observe  its 
neutral  obligations. 

It  is  not  the  interest  of  a  country  situate  as  are  the  United  States^ 
with  their  large  extent  of  sea-coast,  a  small  Navy,  and  smaller  internal 
police,  to  have  it  established  that  a  nation  is  liable  in  damages  for  the 
indirect,  remote,  or  consequential  results  of  a  failure  to  observe  its 
neutral  duties.  This  Government  expects  to  bo  in  the  future,  as  it  has 
been  in  the  past,  a  neutral  much  more  of  the  time  than  a  belligereut. 

It  is  strange  that  the  British  Government  does  not  see  that  the  inter- 
ests of  this  Government  do  not  lead  them  to  expect  or  to  desire  a  judg- 
ment on  the  "  indirect  claims;"  and  that  they  fail  to  do  justice  to  the 
sincerity  of  purpose,  in  the  interests  of  the  future  harmony  of  the  two 
nations,  which  has  led  the  United  States  to  lay  those  claims  before  the 
Tribunal  at  Geneva. 

I  need  not  repeat  to  you  the  earnestness  of  the  President's  desire  to 
prevent  a  failure  of  the  Arbitration,  or  any  repudiation  of  a  Treaty  which 
is  so  hopeful  of  beneficent  results,  nor  need  1  urge  you  to  continued 
efforts,  by  all  that  is  in  your  power,  consistently  with  the  honor  and 
dignity  of  this  nation,  to  bring  about  an  honorable  understanding  be- 
tween the  two  Governments  on  this  question,  which  has  been,  as  it 
appears  to  us,  so  unnecessarily  and  unwisely  raised,  to  the  inimiuent 
peril  of  an  important  Treaty. 


I  am,  &c., 


HAMILTON  F18H. 


No.  19. 

General  SchencJc  to  Mr.  Fish. 
[Extract.] 

!>;     210.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  April  25, 1872. 

Sir:  At  this  moment  it  appears  too  probable  that  the  Government 
here  will        *  *  *  *  »  #  # 

take  such  a  course  as  will  put  an  end  to  the  Arbitration  at  Geneva  and 
to  the  Treaty. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION.      477 

I  will  not  now  attempt  to  explain  or  comment  on  the  situation.  The 
development  and  the  events  of  the  last  few  days  you  will  have  gathered 
from  ray  telegraphic  communications,  and  from  tiie  re])orts  of  j)rocced- 
iiigs  in  Parliament,  and  articles  from  the  London  journals,  which  I  con- 
tinue to  send  you. 

If  there  is  to  be  a  disastrous  termination  of  all  our  work,  from  which 
we  had  hoped  so  much  of  good  for  the  two  countries  aiul  for  the  world, 
the  obstinate  refusal  of  the  British  Government  and  people  to  go  on 
with  a  solemn  and  high  engagement  tliat,  without  any  sacrifice  of  their 
dignity  and  interests,  might  have  been  conducted  to  a  conclusion  which 
would  have  blotted  away  all  serious  causes  of  disiigreement  between 
them  and  us,  will  be  not  a  little  owing  to  the  course  of  some  of  our  own 
citizens. 

The  difficulties  have  been  wonderfully  increased  of  late,  aiul  Great 
Britain  encouraged  in  her  position  by  the  tone  of  some  of  the  Ameri- 
can journals,  by  inconsiderate  declarations  of  some  public  men,  and  by 
much  writing,  telegraphing,  and  conversation,  not  wise  and  thoughtful, 
though  generally,  perhaps,  not  mischievously  iiiteuded.  This  has  led 
at  last  to  a  common  conviction  here  that  the  best  and  most  influential 
men  of  the  United  States  desire  to  have  our  Government  recede  from 
its  position. 

I  await  still  your  commujiication  in  rei>ly  to  Lord  Granville's  note  of 
the  20th  ultimo.  I  hope,  also,  with  that,  or  sooner  by  telegraph,  to  . 
ceive  instructions  from  you,  which  may  direct  and  help  me  in  any  con- 
tingency likely  to  occur.  I  shall  doubtless  have  much  to  report  and 
bring  to  your  consideration  nowvery  soon.  In  the  mean  time,  I  will  not 
fail  to  keep  my  mind  anxiously  directed  to  any  and  every  expedient  by 
which  the  Treaty  may  possibly  be  preserved,  although  our  interest  in 
maintaining  5»nd  executing  its  provisions  is  certainly  not  greater  than 
the  need  of  this  nation,  which  does  not  seem  to  me  to  fully  weigh  and 
appreciate  the  unhappy  consequences  to  flow  from  its  repudiation. 
I  have,  «&c., 

EOBT.  C.  SCHENCK. 


M 


Mill 


No.  20. 


Mr,  Fiih  to  General  Schenck. 


LTON  FISH. 


[Tt'logram.] 

Washington,  April  27, 1872. 

iTou  are  aware  that  neither  in  the  Case  presented  in  behalf  of  this 
Government  at  Geneva  nor  in  the  instructions  to  you  have  the 
United  States  asked  for  pecuniary  damages  on  account  of  that  part  of 
the  Alabama  claims  called  the  indirect  losses,  which  the  British  Gov- 
ernment think  are  not  within  the  province  of  the  Tribunal.  We  think 
it  essential,  however,  that  the  question  be  decided  whether  claims  of 
that  nature  can  in  the  future  be  advanced  against  the  United  States 
as  a  neutral  by  Great  Britain  when  the  latter  is  a  belligerent;  for  if 
Great  Britain  is  to  be  at  liberty  when  a  belligerent  to  advance  claims 
for  indirect  losses  or  injuries  against  this  country,  then  our  claims  must 
be  maintained  and  we  must  press  for  compensation. 

A  conversation  with  Sir  Edward  Thornton  induces  the  belief  that  the 


1 

1 

-s- 

f 

1   u  . 

1  ' 

t  « 

i    'K 

1 

(m 

JaM 

IkMIL 

478 


TEEATY    OF    WAHHINGTON. 


British  Government  may  make  a  proposal  to  you  to  the  etfect  that  Her 
Majesty's  Government  engages  and  stipulates  that  in  the  future,  should 
Great  I3ritain  be  a  belligerent  and  this  country  neutiul,  and  should 
there  be  any  ftiilure  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  to  observe  their 
neutral  obligations,  Great  Britain  will  make  or  advance  no  complaintsH 
or  claims  against  the  United  States  by  reason  or  on  account  of  any  in- 
direct, remote,  or  consequential  results  of  such  failure;  and  that,  in 
consideration  of  such  stipulation,  the  United  States  shall  not  press  for 
a  pecuniary  award  of  damages  before  the  Geneva  Tribunal  on  account 
of  the  claims  respecting  which  Great  Britain  has  expressed  the  opinion 
that  they  are  not  included  in  the  submission,  namely,  the  transfer  of 
the  American  shipping,  increased  iusurance,  and  the  prolongation  of 
the  war. 

Should  a  proposal  to  this  effect  be  made  by  the  British  Government, 
the  President  will  assent  to  it,  it  being  understood  that  there  is  no 
withdrawal  of  any  part  of  the  American  Case,  but  an  agreement  not  to 
demand  damages  on  account  of  the  claims  referred  to,  leaving  the 
Tribunal  to  make  such  expression  of  opinion  as  it  may  think  proper  on 
that  question. 

It  is  presumed  that  such  an  agreement  may  be  carried  into  effect  by 
an  exchange  of  notes. 

FISH. 


[Kroia  Uritiwh  IJliie  Book,  "North  America.,"  Xo.  i),  (lH7'2.i  p.  "i.] 

Ko.  21. 
Uarl  Gmmillc  to  Sir  E.  Thornton. 

FoREKJN  Office,  April  29, 1872. 

Sir  :  General  Schenck  told  me  this  day,  in  a  conversation,  that  lie 
had  not  yet  received  the  answer  from  Mr.  Fish  to  my  letter  of  the  20th 
ultimo,  but  that  he  Lad  received  a  telegraphic  message,  the  substance 
of  which  he  could  not  officially  communicate  until  after  the  delivery  oi 
Mr.  Fish's  answer. 

He  then  read  to  me  as  follows : 

You  .are  aware  that  neither  in  the  CaMO  presented  iu  behalf  of  this  GoviTuiiienr 
nor  in  the  iiistructious  to  yon,  have  the  United  States  asked  for  peeuniary  damages  on 
acconnt  of  that  part  of  the  "Ahibama  claims"  called  the  indirect  losses,  which  the 
British  Government  think  are  not  within  the  province  of  the  Tribuual. 

We  think  it  essential,  however,  that  the  question  be  decided  whether  claims  ol 
that  nature  can  in  the  future  be  admitted  against  the  United  States  as  a  neutral  bj 
Great  Britain  when  the  latter  is  a  belligerent ;  for  if  Great  Britain  is  to  be  at  liberty 
while  a  belligerent  to  advance  claims  for  indirect  losses  or  injuries  against  this  coun- 
try, then  our  claims  must  be  maintained,  and  we  must  press  for  coDipeusation. 

A  conversation  with  Sir  E.  Thornton  induces  the  belief  that  the  British  Govern- 
ment may  make  a  proposal  to  you  to  the  effect  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  engages 
and  stipulates,  that  in  future  should  Great  Britain  be  a  belligerent,  and  this  country  a 
neutral,  and  should  there  be  any  failure  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  to  observe 
their  neutral  obligations,  Great  Britain  willmake  or  advance  no  complaints  or  claims 
against  the  United  States,  by  reason  or  on  account  of  any  indirect,  remote,  or  cou- 
seqnential  results  of  such  failure;  and  that,  in  consideration  of  such  stipulation,  the 
United  States  shall  not  press  for  a  pecuniary  aAvard  of  damages  before  the  Geneva 
Tribunal  on  account  of  the  claims  respecting  which  Great  xiritain  has  expressed  the 
opinion  that  they  are  not  included  in  the  submission,  namely,  the  transfer  of  the 
American  shipping,  increased  iusurance,  and  the  prolongation  of  the  war  Should  a 
proposal  to  this  etfect  be  made  by  the  British  Government,  the  President  will  assent 
to  it ;  it  being  understood  that  there  is  no  withdrawal  of  any  part  of  the  American 
Caee,  but  au  agreement  not  to  demand  damages  on  account  of  the  claims  referred  to„ 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTINCr   OENEVA    ARBITRATION.      479 


t  that  Her 
ire,  should 
nd  should 
jerve  their 
jomplaints 
of  any  in- 
id  that,  in 
t  press  for 
oil  account 
ihe  opinion 
transfer  ol' 


leaving  the  Tribunal  to  make  ouch  expression  of  opinion  as  it  may  think  proper  on 
that  question.  It  is  prcsiiuiod  that  such  an  a<rreeuiunt  may  be  carried  into  utt'ect  by 
au  exchange  of  notes. 

I  observed  to  General  Schenck  that  Sir  K.  Thornton,  in  whom  I  had 
the  fullest  confidence,  had  no  instructions,  and  no  authority  to  give  au 
opinion  on  any  proposal  for  the  solution  of  the  ditliculty. 

I  had  purposely  desired  to  confine  the  negotiations  to  one  channel,  in 
order  to  avoid  confusion. 

The  United  States  Minister  remarked  that  the  words  of  the  telegram 
did  not  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  Sir  K  Thornton  had  done  so. 

I  then  stated  that  the  proposal  in  its  present  shape  could  not  be 
adopted  by  Her  INFajesty's  Government.  It  was  only  proposed  that  the 
American  Government,  who  had  presented  the  claims  for  indirect  losses, 
shall  no  further  press  them.  But  the  Arbitrators  had  them  before  them ; 
we  certainly  should  not  consent  to  plead  against  them  ;  and  the  mere 
absence  of  further  pressing  them  by  the  United  States  Government 
would  leave  the  matter,  as  regarded  the  Arbitrators,  in  the  position  it 
now  was. 

As  to  the  Arbitrators  being  left  to  make  such  expression  of  opinion 
as  they  may  think  proper  on  that  question,  it  appeared  to  be  unintelli- 
gible. 

If  the  United  States  Government  agreed  substantially  to  withdraw 
the  indirect  claims,  it  was  not  only  with  a  feeling,  which  I  cordially 
appreciated,  of  maintaining  the  most  friendly  feelings  between  the  two 
countries,  but  also  because  they  believed  it  was  in  the  interest  of  both' 
that  there  should  be  no  future  liability  on  the  part  of  either  Govern- 
ment for  such  claims.  If  we  both  came  to  an  agreement,  no  strength 
would  be  given  to  that  agreement  by  a  favorable  expression  of  opinion 
from  a  body  who  were  not  appointed  in  order  to  lay  down  principles  of 
international  law  ;  and  if  they  gave  a  contrary  opinion,  it  would  be  au 
unseemly  result,  and  against  the  interest  of  both  countries. 

I  then  read  to  him  the  following  statement  of  the  views  which  the 
Cabinet  were  disposed  to  entertain  as  to  the  course  which  might  be 
pursued : 

We  are  ready  to  join  witli  the  United  States  in  a  statement  to  the  Arbitrators  that, 
in  any  award  they  may  make,  they  are  not  to  have  regard  to  the  indirect  claims.  Wo- 
are  also  ready  to  state  that  the  language  we  have  hitherto  used  respecting  these  in- 
direct claims  involves  a  declaration  of  intention,  which  is  to  guide  our  conduct  in 
future.  Any  such  intention,  and  its  binding  force  on  future  conduct,  would  of  course 
be  reciprocal.  We  do  not  know  what  is  meant  by  the  submission  of  the  abstr.ict 
i|ue8tionto  the  Arbitrators,  nor  do  we  see  how  it  could  be  admissible,  inasmuch  as  that 
question  would  already  have  been  virtually  decided  by  mutual  consent. 

General  Scbenck  then  asked  me  why  I  should  not  write  to  him  such 
a  note  as  he  would  suggest,  in  which  it  should  be  said  that  "  while  Her 
Majesty's  Government  still  adhere  to  their  view  that  it  is  not  within  the 
province  of  the  Arbitrators  to  consider  or  decide  upon  the  claims  for 
indirect  losses,  and  that  therefore  the  Government  of  the  United  Stat'^s 
ought  not  to  press  for  a  consideration  of  such  claims,  yet  they  are  free 
to  state  that,  in  the  event  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
agreeing  to  refrain  from  pressing  for  compensation,  or  for  any  pecuniary 
award  for  that  portion  of  their  claims  as  set  out  in  their  Case  to  the 
Oeneva  Arbitrators,  Her  Majesty's  Government  will,  on  their  part,  agree 
that  the  view  of  the  inadmissibility  of  such  claims  which  they  have  hereto- 
fore presented,  will  still  continue  to  be  their  principle  of  action  and  con- 
duct in  all  like  cases,  and  in  similar  circumstances,  and  particularly, 
are  ready  to  give  assurance,  in  pursuance  of  the  recognition  of  such 
principles,  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  that  if  Great  Britain* 


480 


TREATY   OF    WASHimJTON. 


should  at  any  time  hereafter  be  a  belligerent  while  the  United  States 
are  neutral,  claims  of  that  nature  will  never  be  advanced  again.st  the 
United  States." 

I  stated  to  the  United  States  Minister  that  the  Cabinet,  in  discusslnjT 
the  scheme  sent  by  Sir  E.  Tliornton,  had  treated  it  as  Mr.  Fish's  pro- 
posal,  and  had  not  entertained  the  thouglit  of  its  being  a  proijosal  to 
be  made  ')/  themselves. 

General  Schenck  said  that  it  was  of  great  importance  that  we  should 
make  the  proposal. 

I  said  that  I  had  been  writing  at  Ins  dictation  and  did  not  wish  to  jmt 
words  in  his  mouth,  but  that  I  thought  the  words  which  1  had  used, 
•'  not  to  have  regard"  to  claims  for  iiulirect  losses,  were  better  in  every 
way  than  those  which  he  had  adopted  from  Mr.  Fish's  telegram,  "  uot 
to  press,"  &c. 

1  had  no  doubt  of  the  good  faith  of  the  United  States  Government, 
but  it  was  desirable,  after  the  past  misunderstanding,  to  nudie  every- 
thing as  clear  as  possible.  General  Schenck  declined  to  deviate  from 
the  telegram  in  this  particular. 

I  then  suggested  the  addition  of  the  words  "  and  such  agreement 
being  m.ade  known  to  the  Arbitrators  be^'<  m)  the  15th  of  June,"  which 
he  adopted.  I  also  pointed  out  the  omission  of  any  declaration  of  re- 
ciprocity for  the  future,  which  was  a  matter  of  course,  and  he  puthor- 
ized  me  to  write  down  "  such  understanding  between  the  i)arties  of 
course  to  be  reciprocal  for  the  future." 

General  Schenck  repeated  a  strong  appeal  to  me  to  be  contented  with 
substantially  getting  what  we  wanted. 

I  promised  to  submit  what  he  had  written,  and  for  which  I  could  un- 
dertake no  responsibility,  to  my  colleagues,  and  we  agreed  to  continue 
confidential  communication  in  order  to  save  time. 

After  consultation  with  my  colleagues,  I  forwarded  to  General  Schenck 
the  note  and  inclosure,  of  which  I  transmit  copies  herewith. 
I  am,  &c., 

GRANVILLE. 


[Inclosure  I  in  No.  -'l.| 

Earl  Granville  to  General  Schenck. 

fCoufitlontial.] 

16  Brltox  Sthkkt,  April  '29,  1872. 
My  DearGkneral:  I  wend  yon  in  a  rough  state  a  paraphrase  of  your  proposed 
draught.    Please  return  it  to  me  wlien  you  have  taken  a  copy. 

The  Cabinet  were  of  opinion  that  it  was  for  the  United  States  to  make  the  proposal 
officially  as  well  as  confidentially,  but  they  are  prepared  to  concede  on  this  point  in 
the  spirit  which  you  recommend. 

They  insist  upon  the  words  in  the  first  half  of  the  third  page'  as  preferable  to  tliost* 
you  have  taken  from  the  message  of  Mr.  Fish.* 

The  other  nlterati«)n8  are  for  the  purpose  of  clearness,  and  in  the  hope  that  some  of 
them  will  be  more  acceptable  to  your  Government. 
Yours,  &,c., 

GRANVILLE. 


[For  IncloBure  9  iu  No.  21,  see  p.  481.] 


'"That  the  Arbitrators  are  not  to  have  regard,  iu  any  award  that  they  may  mako, 
to  the  above-mentioned  claims."    (See  luclosure  2.) 

2  "  The  United  States  shall  not  press  for  a  pecuniary  award  of  damages  before  tie  | 
Geneva  Tribunal  on  account  of  the  claims  respecting  which,"  &c.    (See  page  478.) 


y  -^j 


CORKi:SPn\I>KN'CE    KESPKfTIXO    fiENKVA    ARMITRATIOX.      481 

No.  L»2. 

General  ISchenck  tn  Mr.  Fish. 

[Tt'lt';^ram.] 

London,  April  ;>0,  ISTli. 

Your  181,  leeeivtMl  last  iiiylit,  has  betMi  by  soiiio  accident  wet  and 
hliirretl,  but  1  hope  to  make  it  all  out  to-day.  Meantime  your  telegram, 
which  came  Sunday  night,  was  the  occasion  of  a  stri(;tly  confidential 
interview  with  (Iranville  yesterday,  lie  objected  to  this  (Jrovernment 
making  iirst  movement,  but  that  point  is  now  conceded.  They  object 
to  having  Arbitrators  express  opinion  on  indirect  claims,  when  the  two 
Governments  agree"that  they  are  not  to  be  the  subject  of  award. 

After  consideration  by  Cabinet  the  following  paper  was  given  me  last 
night  confidentially  as  the  drauglit  of  a  possible  communication  to  be 
made  to  me,  if  the  United  States  have  promised  to  assent  to  it  and  will 
lireviously  put  Her  jMaJesty's  (rovernment  in  possession  of  the  terms  of 
the  assent : 

Ilor  Mnjcsty's  (tovt'iniiKiit  adlierc  to  fliuir  viow  tliat  it  is  not  within  the  j»rovinc»^  of 
tlio  Arbitrators  to  consider  or  to  (hx'ide  ujton  tiio  claims  for  indirect  lossos,  viz,  this 
transfer  of  the  American  shipping,  the  increased  preminms  of  insnrance,  and  the  jiro- 
longation  of  the  war,  and  that  consei[nentl.v  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
mii;iit  not  to  press  for  a  consideration  of  snch  claims.  They  are,  however,  ready  to  state 
that,  in  the  event  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  agreeing  that  the  Arbitra- 
tors are  not  to  have  regard,  in  any  award  that  they  may  make,  to  the  above-mentioned 
rlainis,  Her  Majesty's  Government  v  ill,  on  their  part,  agree  that  the  view  which  they 
have  heretofore  presented  of  the  inadmissibility  of  such  claims  shall  still  continue  to 
lie  their  principle  of  action  and  comlnct  in  all  like  cases  and  in  similar  circnuistances; 
mid  that  they  are  re.ady,  in  pnrsimnce  of  the  recognition  of  snch  principle,  to  give  us- 
^iiiance  to  the  United  States  that,  if  Great  Britain  should,  at  any  time  hereafter,  be  a 
liuiligerent,  while  the  United  States  is  a  neutral,  claims  of  that  nature,  in  similar  cases 
iiiul  similar  circumstances,  will  never  be  advanced  agaiust  the  United  States,  such  an 
iissurance  for  the  future  being  reciprocally  given  by  both  parties.  An  arrangement 
such  as  IS  luire  sketched  out  might  be  carried  into  effect  by  an  exchange  of  notes, 
which  shall  be  communicated  to  and  recorded  by  the  Arbitrators. 

In  submitting  this  draught  of  their  proposal,  I  should  inform  you  that 
I  have  insisted  on  this  language,  "  the  United  States  agreeing  to  refrain 
from   pressing  for  compensation  or  for  any  pecuniary  award  for  the 

bove-mentioned  claims," 

SCHENCK. 


I  «■ 


[From  British  Blue  Book  North  America,  No.  i>,  (H72,)  |).  1.] 

No.  2;J. 

Sir  E.  Thornton  to  Earl  Granville.^ 
[Extract.] 

Washington,  April  30,  1872.    (Keceived  May  12.) 

I  called  ui)on  Mr.  Fish  at  the  State  Departrvent  on  the  25tli  instant, 
Thursday,  the  day  of  the  week  on  which  he  requests  that  members  of 


'The  substance  of  tliis  dispatch  was  received  by  telegraph  on  the  27th  of  April. 
31   A— 11 


482 


TUKATY    or    WASHINCJTO.V. 


tlie  Diploiiiiitic-  r>o<ly  may  visit  liim.  llo  iiifoninMl  mo  tlmt  lu»  Imd 
recoivt'd  the  <lay  Ix'foic  a  ti'l(';;iram  fVom  (U'lH'ial  ScheiicU,  in  wliich  lie 
stated  that  your  lionlsiiip  had  tohl  iiim  that,  it'  Mv,  Fish's  answer  to 
your  note  of  the  L'Otii  ultimo  did  not  (Miutain  some  satistiU'tory  eomiini- 
nication  with  ref^aid  to  the  ehinns  lor  iiulireet  (lan>a;;es,  Ker  Majesty's 
Government  wouhl  be  oblij^ed  to  announee  its  intention  of  withdrawinj^ 
entirely  from  the  Arbitration  at  (leneva.  3Ir.  Fish  added  that  ho  should 
sincerely  re;^ret  to  luuir  of  sueh  an  ainionneement  being  imule,  for  that  ir 
could  only  be  looked  upon  as  a  mena(H',  and  would  destroy  all  hope  of 
an  understandiu};  upon  the  subject.  .Mr.  Fish  then  sent  for  the  (bauyht  of 
his  disjiatch  to  (leneral  Srdienck  in  answer  to  your  Lordship's  note  of 
the  L'Oth  ultimo,  and  read  it  to  me.  Your  Lonlsliip  will  probably  have; 
reeeived  a  copy  of  it  from  (leneral  S(dienck  yesterday  or  today.  IMr. 
Fish  also  read  me  i)art  of  the  dispatch  whicli  lie  had  sent  to  (liMieral 
Schenok  on  the  lUth  instant,  and  in  which  Mr.  Fish  expressed  liis  sur- 
I>rise  that  Her  Majesty's  (lovernment  should  object  so  much  to  a  decision 
by  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  (lenevaon  tlie  matter  of  the  indirect 
claims;  for  that  it  must  be  aware  that  the  United  States  Government 
neither  expected  nor  desired  a  money-award  on  ac<!Ount  of  those  claims, 
and  that  the  United  States  were  (juite  as  much  interested  as  Great  liritaiu 
ir  obtainiufjf  from  the  Tribunal  a  decision  adverse  to  those  claims.  Tiio 
tone  of  the  dispatch  was  friendly  and  conciliatory,  and  was  evidently 
intended  to  contribute  to  brin<;in};-  about  an  ajjreement  ui)on  the  question 
at  issue.  Indeed,  I  j;athered  that  the  part  of  the  draught  which  was  not 
read  to  me  (iontained  a  distinct  proposal  upon  the  subject.  I  fear,  how- 
ever, that  this  dispatch  will  reach  General  Schenck  too  late  for  practical 
I)urposes. 

Mr.  Fish  told  me  that  Mr.  Adams  left  New  York  for  England  on  the 
24tli  instant,  ami  tliat,  on  his  arrival  there,  he  would  convince  youi 
Jjoi'dship,  though  unotiicially,  that  he  was  entirely  opposed  to  the  prin- 
cijde  of  claims  for  consequential  damages. 

But,  during  the  whole  conversation,  Mr.  Fish  betrayed  Jiuxiety  that 
the  Treaty  should  not  be  allowed  to  break  down,  and  frequently  expressod 
his  hope  that  your  Lordship  would  suggest  seme  means  of  disposing  ol 
the  indirect  claims,  which  would  at  the  same  time  satisfy  Her  Majesty's 
Government  and  would  bo  possible  for  that  of  the  United  States;  for 
he  said  that,  even  if  the  latter  was  not  justitied  in  ever  having  i)resent(l 
those  claims — which  he  could  not  admit — it  was  impossible  for  it  now 
to  recede  or  withdraw  them,  unless  it  should  obtain  a  quid  pro  quo.  U 
Her  Majesty's  Government  was  really  anxious  that  the  provisions  of  the 
Treaty  should  le  carried  out,  which  1  {^Trnestly  assured  him  certainly 
was  tlie  case,  why,  he  asked,  should  nofc  y  ur  Lordship,  in  your  answor 
to  his  dispatch,  now  on  its  way,  staic  that,  as  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment luul  made  it  evident  that  it  flid  not  desire  a  money-award  on 
account  of  the  indirect  claims,  but  merely  a  decision  oh  their  merits  by 
the  Tribunal,  Her  Majesty's  Government  would  consent  never  to  present 
such  indirect  claims,  under  similar  circumstances,  when  England  might 
happen  to  be  a  belligerent,  and  would  allow  the  abstract  question  to  be 
decided  for  the  benetit  of  both  parties,  if  the  United  States  Government 
would  engage  not  to  ask  for  a  money-award  on  the  indirect  claims  from 
the  Tribunal  at  Geneva. 

Mr.  Fish  asked  my  opinion  upon  this  suggestion;  but  I  replied  that  it 
was  impossible  for  me  to  imagine  what  Her  Majesty's  Government  might 
think  of  such  a  mode  of  arrangement,  which  I  had  now  heard  from  him 
for  the  first  time,  and  upon  which  I  could  not  possiblj  have  received 


lilt  he  1iii<l 
n  which  he 
^  answer  to 
ny  eoinimi- 
»r  Majesty's 
ithtliitwiin,' 
it  he  should 
1',  tor  that  it 
'  all  hope  of 

0  dvaiij-iitof 
liip's  note  of 
obably  have, 
;o(lay.     Mr. 

to  (lenernl 
sseil  his  sur- 
to  a  deeisioii 
the  indirect 
Govermnent 
those  claims, 

1  reat  Britain 
claims.  Tiio, 
as  evidently 
the  question 
hich  was  not 

I  tear,  how  ■ 
for  practical 


(•niiRKsp()Ni)i:.\n:  HKsiM:rTi\(;  (jkni'va  AUitiTitATiox.    483 

any  instructions  from  your  iiordship.  I'pcui  his  uryin^',  however,  that 
i  slionid  let  him  know  my  priviiti>  feeliuiA'on  tiie  siiltjr'ct,  1  sai<l  that,  with 
some  modifications,  I  thoiifiht  it  i)ossii>l(«  that  it  nii;;lit  foi-m  tlie  basis 
of  an  arranji'cmcnt,  and  that  1  would  have  no  ol)j('ctiou  to  tele;;raph  tlu^ 
substance  of  liis(!ommunication  to  yoni-  Loidship.  iJut  1  asked  wiiether 
the  I'resident  wonhl  be  able  to  a<;ree  to  such  an  arranycnuMit  without 
rcceivin<;  the  sanction  of  the  Seuatt^  to  it.  .Mr.  Fish  r*'plicd  with  confi- 
dence that  he  I'ould  do  so,  for  that  it  woidd  l>e  nn'rely  an  a;;reeiuent  as 
to  the  ref^ulation  of  tln^  modt^  of  reference  to  tln^  Tribunal,  which  was 
entirely  in  the  hamls  of  the  I'^vecntive. 

rmmediately  after  my  interview  with  ^Ir.  Fish  on  the  L'.">th  instant,  E 
found,  in  tiie  evenin}:;'  newspai)er,  allusions  to  what  In?  had  su<;ji«\sted, 
and  cou[)lcd  with  it  a  statement  that  the  l'resi«lent  disayiccd  with  Mr. 
Fish  upon  the  subject.  The  latter  paid  u\o  a  visit  on  tlie  afternoon  of 
the  2(»th  instant,  and  assured  me  that  the  President  was  entirely  in 
accord  with  him  as  to  the  possibility  of  an  arranjjienient  on  the  basis  to 
whi(!h  he  had  alluded  in  his  (conversation  of  the  ])revious  day;  an<l  he 
beffsi^'l  me  to  assure  you  that  he  was  fully  supportj'd  by  the  I'resident. 

J)uring  this  visit  I  pointed  out  to  Mr.  Fish  tlmt,  in  case  the  suj-jiest- 
ions  nuule  by  him  were  taken  into  consi<lcration,  the  United  states 
(lovernment  would  probably  be  expected  to  enyaj^e  on  its  i)art  that,  it 
would  never  again  make  such  claims  against  England  as  a  neutral  as 
had  recently  been  presented  in  its  Case.  ]\Ir.  Fish  replied  that,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  it  never  would  do  so,  but  that  to  take  a  formal  engage- 
ment to  that  effect  woulil  involve  the  necessity  of  an  application  to  the 
Senate. 


.i#f 


gland 


on  the 
)nvince  your 
I  to  the  prill- 
anxiety  that 
tly  expressoil 
'  disposing  of 
ler  Majesty's 
I  States ;  for 
ing  presentd 
for  it  now 
pro  quo.    It' 
visions  of  the 
lim  certainly 
your  answer 
.ates  Govern- 
ley-award  on 
eir  merits  by 
er  to  present 
igland  might 
uestion  to  be 
Government 
b  claims  from 

eplied  that  it 
•umeut  might 
ard  from  him 
ave  received 


No  24. 


General  Helwnelc  to  Mr.  Fish. 
[Telcjjram.] 

London,  May  2, 1872. 

Lord  Granville  proposes  the  following  as  the  introductory  PJirt  of  the 
note  submitted  to  you  by  my  telegram  of  the  30th  ultimo : 

I  have  laid  before  my  colleagues  the  dispatch  addressed  to  you  l)y  Mr.  Fish  on  the 
16th  idtimo,  of  which  yoii  furnished  nio  with  a  copy  on  the  1st  instant.  I  informed 
you,  in  uiy  letter  of  the  20th  of  March,  that  Her  Majesty's  Government,  in  conununi- 
eating  to  you  the  grounds  on  which  they  hold  that  the  claims  for  indirect  losses  are  ex- 
cluded from  the  scope  and  intention  of  the  reference  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at 
Geneva,  did  not  wish  to  commence  a  diplomatic  controversj',  but  merely  to  comply 
with  the  desire  substantially  expressed  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  be 
advised  of  the  reasons  which  had  prompted  the  declaration  made  by  me  on  bf  half  of 
Her  Majesty's  Government  on  the  ;?d  of  February.  Her  Majesty's  Government  are  still 
I'  of  the  same  mind  ;  and  although  they  cannot  admit  the  force  of  the  partial  rejoinder 
which  Mr.  Fish  has  made  to  that  statement  of  their  reasou.s,  they  agree  with  Mr.  Fish 
in  seeing  no  advantage  in  the  continuance  of  an  argumentative  discussion  on  the  sub- 
ject. It  Avill,  however,  be  understood  that,  if  I  do  not  review  the  matter  of  Mr.  Fish's 
dinpatch,  it  is  not  from  an  assent  to  his  positions,  but  from  the  hope  that  a  way  may 
be  found,  without  prejudice  to  the  arguments  heretofore  advanced  by  Her  Majesty's 
Government,  to  avoid  further  controversy.  In  the  full  expectation,  therefore,  that  au 
arrangement  satisfactory  to  both  countries  will  be  accepted  by  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  I  proceed  to  state  the  views  of  Her  Majesty's  Government. 

SCHENCK. 


484  TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 

[From  British  Blue  Book  North  America,  No.  9,  (If^riJ,)  p.  4.] 

No.  25. 
IJarl  (iranville  to  Mr.  Thornton. 

FoKEiGN  Office,  May  2,  1872. 

Sir:  With  reference  to  my  dis])atcU  of  the  20th  ultimo,  I  transmit 
to  you  herewith  coi»ies  of  a  further  private  letter  to  Geueral  Schenck, 
and  its  iuclosure. 
1  am,  «Jv'C., 

GKANVILLK, 


f  I'lclosure  l.j 

I'Avl  GmnviUe  to  (liiural  Scheiick. 

(Ci)iiti(l('iitial.j 

FuiiKUi.v  Oi'iKJK,  May  '-i,  l-i'-i. 
]Mv  Dkar  Gexekaf,  Sciiemk  :  According  to  ycnr  rc<[uest  I  send  you  the  proposcii 
prefiicti  to  the  words  which  I  hiive  already  comiuunicatcd  to  you,  eiiit)odyiu<^  the  pro- 
posal, based  ou  your  suiji^estious,  which  wo  are  prepared  to  uiako  to  the  GoveruiuiMii 
of  the  United  States,  ou  condition  of  our  beinj;  previously  informed  of  their  assent. 
aud  of  the  form  in  which  that  asseut  will  be  giveu  being  satisfactory  to  us. 
Yours,  Ac, 

GRANVILLE. 

[For  iuclosuvc  2  in  No.  y."),  see  p.  4i5;5.] 


Xo.  20. 

Mr.  Fifih  to  General  iSehencl: 
[Telegram.] 

Washington,  May  4,  1872. 

The  President  regrets  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  have  not 
thought  proper  to  make  the  proposal  mentioned  in  my  telegram  to  you 
of  27th  April,  ,siiich  this  (rovernment  had  been  led  to  hope  might  afford 
a  solution  of  the  differences  between  the  two  Governments  with  regard 
to  the  arbitration  now  pending  under  the  Treaty  of  Washington.  The 
nature  and  terms  of  the  propo.sition  cont.ained  in  your  telcgrain  of  30tli 
April  are  such  that  it  cannot  justify  his  assent. 

He  cannot  assent  to  any  proposition  which  by  implication  or  infereuo 
withdraws  any  part  of  the  claims,  or  of  the  Case  of  this  Government, 
from  the  consideration  of  the  Tribunal.  The  British  Government  pro 
poses  that  the  views  heretofore  i)resented  by  them,  that  certain  of  the 
claims  put  fortU  by  the  United  States  are  not  within  the  i)rovince  of  the 
Tribunal,  be  continued  as  their  principle  of  action  and  conduct,  and  that 
in  recognition  of  such  principle  an  assurance  be  reciprocally  given  by 
both  parties. 

The  United  States  <lo  not  entertain  the  views  thus  })resented  by  Her 
Majesty's  Government,  and  cannot  enter  into  an  assurance  on  the  basis 


COKKKSPONDENCP:.    respecting    geneva   AinUTKATION.     485 


2,  1872. 

tmiismit 
Sohenck, 


of  such  principle.  Tho  proposal  limits  the  aj-reenieiit  of  the  British 
(Joverunieiit  to  a  stipulation  not  to  advance  claims  of  that  nature  in 
similar  cases  and  similar  circumstances.  No  two  cases  are  similar,  and 
circumstances  similar  to  those  arising:  durin*;'  the  rebellion  cannot  occur 
to  Great  Britain ;  consequently  the  terms  of  the  proi)osed  agreement 
guarantee  nothing  to  this  Government. 

The  proposal  prevents  any  expression  of  opinimi  or  of  Judgment  by 
the  Tribunal  on  the  class  of  claims  referred  to,  and  thus  virtually 
denies  what  this  Goverinuent  believes — that  the  Tribunal  has  Jurisdic- 
tion over  all  the  claims  which  hare  been  put  forth.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances the  President  is  compelled  to  adhere  to  the  opinion  that  it 
is  within  the  province  of  the  Arbitrators  at  Geneva  to  consider  all  the 
claims,  and  to  determine  the  liability  of  Great  Britain  for  all  the  claims 
which  have  l)een  put  forward  bv  the  United  States. 

FISH. 


;ho  proposcii 
iu<f  the  i)ii>- 
GovcrunnMii 
their  assi-iit. 


VNVIELK. 


4,  1872. 

have  not 
am  to  you 
[gilt  att'ortl 
ith  regard 
fton.  The 
im  of  30 th 

infereni..' 
vernment. 
iment  pro 
ain  of  the 
nee  of  the 
t,  and  that 


y 


silV 


en  by 


ed  by  Her 

the  basis 


No.  27. 
Gcncnd  St-hcnvh  to  Mr,  Fisii. 

[Tch'griuii.] 

L'  NOON,  Muli  r»,  1872. 

Your  telegram  of  yesterday  received  to-day. 

AVill  endeavor  to  see  CJranville  to-night  or  early  to-morrow.  \\"\\{ 
urge  him  to  modify  his  jnoposal  in  accordance  with  your  views.  AVill 
you  examine  it,  in(;hnling  introductory  paragraphs  as  given  in  my  tele- 
grams of  A})ril  .'!0  and  3Iay  .»,  and,  taking  it  for  a  basis,  suggest  exactly 
what  modiUfatious  would  make  it  pos.siiile  for  the  President  to  assent 
to  it?  Also  give  me  draught  of  such  reply  as  you  would  bo  willing  to 
make.  I  am  confuhMit  this  Governnu'ut  will  not  agree  to  the  last  para- 
uraph  of  your  telegram  of  April  27.  They  may  agree  that  if  the  United 
States  will  engage  not  to  ])ress  lor  award  for  indirect  danmges,  nothing 
need  be  said  about  any  modiiication  of  the  original  Case,  nor  Avhether 
such  agreenuMit  is  a  withdrawal  or  not  a  withdrawal  of  any  part  of  that 
Case.  Ifather  than  agree  to  submit  the  indirect  claims  to  the  Judgment 
of  the  Tribunal,  I  aj^prehend  this  (roverinnent,  l»acked  by  Parlianuuit, 
would  (!ease  negotiation  ainl  make  an  absolute  dcclai'ation  against  ])ro- 
oeeding  with  the  arbitration.  Gould  the  President  assent  to  their  otl'er 
if  1  can  get  the  following  substitute  for  w  hat  I  telegraphed  April  .'JO  I 

Her  Mii.jcstj's  Govcriiiiicnt  are  now  ready  t:i  Mtiitc  that  if  tho  rnitcd  States  will 
and  »lo  iif^ree  not  to  ])reHs  t'oi-  a  iieeuniai'y  award  het'orc  the  Trihnnal  of  Arhitnition  at 
(ieneva,  «)n  aeconnt  of  ehiinis  for  indirect  losses  or  dania-cs,  namely,  the  increased 
lircniiuins  of  insnranee,  the  transfer  of  American  shiiijiinji.  and  th'.^  iirolonj^ation  of 
the  war,  then  Iler  Majesty's  (iovernnient  will  and  do.  on  their  part,  i'n;;af;e  ami  stijin- 
lato  that,  shonld  (ireat  Itritain  at  any  time  in  the  future  l>e  a  Itelligennt  while  the, 
I'nitiHl  States  is  ii  neutral ;  and  should  then*  bo  any  failure  on  the  ]iart  of  the  United 
states  to  observe  their  neutral  oblijratioiis.  Great  Ihitaiu  will  imikv;  or  a)ivan'Hi  no 
lomplaints  or  claims  a<i;ainst  the  United  States  by  reason  or  on  iiccount  of  any  indi- 
rect, remote,  or  conse<|uential  results  of  such  failure.  This  rule,  oi'  i)rinci]tle  not  to 
advniu'c  or  press  eomidaint.'i  or  claims  for  indirect,  ronuite.  or  conseiiuential  dunni>;«'N, 
to  he  mutually  and  reci]U()eally  observed  by  l>oth  parties  in  the  future.  The  notes 
which  are  exchanjjed  on  this  subject  to  be  presented  to  the  'I'ribunal  of  Arliitration 
and  entered  on  its  record. 

SCIIKNCK. 


486 


TREATY    OF    WASFFIXOTON. 
^0.  1'8. 


Oencral  ScliencJc  to  Mr.  Finh. 
[Teli'ffraui.] 

LONUOX,  M(;ij  G,  1S72. 

Had  tno  hours'  (li.sciissiou  with  Granville  last  nif^ht.  To-day  ho 
hands  'jjc,  as  the  result  of  conference  with  his  colleagues,  the  followinj; 
amc'ided  proposal.  Compare  it  with  their  former  offer  and  inform  nu; 
how  far  you  can  assent  or  must  object.  I  told  him  I  thoujf-ht  it  not 
modified  so  as  to  be  yet  satisfactory,  but  agreed  to  submit  it  to  you. 

Her  Majesty's  Government  nre  ready  to  engajjo  that,  in  the  event  of  the  Govciii- 
iiieut  of  tlie  United  States  aRTceinjj;  tliat  the  Arlfitvators  are  not  to  have  rejuanl,  in 
any  award  that  they  may  malse,  to  the  elaini.s  for  indirect  losses,  namely,  tlie.  transit  i 
of  the  American  shijjpinjj;,  tlie  increased  itn'miiims  of  insurance,  and  tlie  prolonffation 
of  the  "vvar,  Her  Majesty's  Government  will,  on  their  part,  af,<ee  that  the  view  wliicli 
they  have  heretofore  presented  of  such  claims  shall  J)o  their  jtrinciple  of  future  action 
and  conduct;  and  they  are  ready,  in  pursuance  of  the  recoi;nition  of  such  principle, 
to  give  assurance  to  the  Unit»>d  States  that  if  Great  Britain  should  at  any  time  herc- 
afier  he  a  belligerent  while  the  United  States  are  neutral,  Great  IJritain  will  never 
advance  any  claims  inconsistent  with  that  principle,  such  an  engagement  for  the 
future  heing  reciprocally  given  by  both  ])arties;  the  not(!S  which  are  exchanged  on 
this  subject  to  be  presented  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  and  entered  on  its  records. 

In  the  pi'efatory  paragraphs  he  strikes  out,  at  my  suggestion,  tlic 
words  "without  prejudice  to  the  arguments  heretofore  advanced  by 
Her  Majestv's  Government." 

Keceivedat  1.20  a.  m.  SCIIEXCK. 


Xo.  2!). 


M>\  Flfih  to  doicral  ^ScJuiU'J:. 


[Telegram.] 

\Va.siii>«gton,  May  G,  1872. 

Your  telegram  received  during  the  night. 

An  agreement  which  is  to  bind  the  future  action  of  this  (lovernniont 
can  be  made  only  by  treaty,  ami  would  reipiire  the  assent  of  the  Senate. 

Should  tlie  Tribunal  decide  that  a  nation  is  not  responsible  in  pecu- 
niary damages  for  the  consequential  results  of  a  failure  to  observe  its 
neutral  obligations,  such  decision  (;ould  luit  fail  to  be  regarded  as  set- 
tling the  «piestion  between  the  two  Governments  in  the  future. 

If  the  British  Government  desire  to  open  negotiations  to  define  by 
treaty  the  extent  of  liability  for  con.seciuential  danniges  resulting  from 
a  failure  of  obserNJim-e  of  neutral  obligations,  the  I'resident  will  care- 
fully consider  any  i)roposals  in  that  <lirection. 

FISU. 


^■il 


COKUESrONDENCK    KESrECTING    OENEVA    ARBITRATION.      487 
[From  British  Bine  Book  "North  Anu-rica,"  No.  9,  (187-2,)  p.  '>.] 

Sir  iJ.  Tliornion  to  Earl  (IranviUe.^ 

[Extract.] 

Washington,  May  G,  1872.     (deceived  May  20.) 

I  (tailed  vipon  INLr.  Fish  on  the  2(1  instant  and  learned  from  liiin  that 
he  had  on  tlic  previous  daj^  reeeived  a  telefjrani  from  General  Schenck, 
which,  however,  was  so  unintelli^^ible  that  he  had  been  obliged  to  tele- 
gra))h  back  that  it  should  be  re))eated. 

Mr.  Fish,  however,  seemed  to  have  made  out  enough  of  the  telegram 
to  have  discovered  the  wish  of  Her  Majesty's  (lovernment  that  the  claims 
for  indirect  danniges  should  not  be  submitted  at  all  to  the  Tribunal  of 
Arbitration  even  as  an  abstract  question,  or  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining 
an  opinion  upon  them.  With  refer«Mice  to  this  point  ]Mr.  Fish  said  that 
it  was  impossible  for  the  United  States  (iovernment  to  agree  to  with- 
draw those  claims,  though  it  might  consent  to  ask  no  money  compensa- 
tion for  theiM  ;  for  that,  even  if  it  were  true  that  it  was  in  error  in  sup- 
])osing  that  1 1- ^  were  included  in  the  Treaty,  though  he  insisted  that 
they  wer'i  ,•;'  ij.i.ded,  no  nation  whi<;h  had  any  respect  for  itself  could 
consent  to  .iiiiar.w  claims  which  had  been  formally  presented  after  due 
reflection. 

Mr.  Fish  told  me  that  he  should,  after  consulting  with  the  President, 
instruct  General  Schenck  that,  however  anxious  liis  Government  was 
that  the  arbitration  should  proceed,  it  could  not  recede  from  any  part 
of  the  Case  which  had  been  ])resented  to  the  Tribuiml. 

On  the  following  day  the  President  desired  one  of  his  secretaries  to 
write  to  the  republican  membersof  the  Committee  on  Foreign  delations 
of  the  two  Houses,  requesting  them  to  meet  him  at  the  State  Depart- 
ment on  the  next  day.  The  democratic  members  of  the  committees 
were  omitted  from  the  invitation. 

Tlie  (piestion  of  the  indirect  claims  was  discussed,  but  it  liPS  been  im- 
possible to  ascertain  precisely  what  «leci.sion,  if  any,  was  come  to. 

I  saw  Mr.  Fish  this  «:  oniug  at  his  o.vn  house,  wiien  he  referred  to 
the  telegram  which  1  :- Iiad  received  or.  tlie  Ist  instant  from  General 
Schenck,  afid  riid  ti  i  u.  i-  oMajesty's  Government  recpiired  that  the 
United  States  Gove^  ii,  <  aould  formally  acknowledge  that  the  indi- 
rect claims  were  not  wii./ .  tho  8coi)e  of  the  arltitration.  This,  he  said, 
was  impossible,  becauf  ii*  •  '.ad  been  presented  to  the  Tril)unal  under 
ilie  linn  conviction  that  I'lcy  were  in(;lnded  in  the  Treaty.  AVishiiig, 
however,  to  ao  his  utmost  that  the  arbitration  miglit  continue,  he  lad 
yesterday  instructed  General  Schenck,  tliat  if  \  fer  Majest;  '.^  Governin  jnt 
Avere  disposed  to  negotiate  for  a  re(;iprocal  agrcMiient,  that  onch  nivrty 
as  a  belligerent  should  abstain  from  demanding  compensation  for  indi- 
rect damages  from  the  other  being  neutral,  the  President  would  take 
the  matter  into  1  "'.^  serious  consi^^eratioi  witli  an  earnest  desire  to  meet 
the  views-of  He    M  :  ^  sty's  Government. 


The  substance  of  lli  .^^   li:'tpatih  was  receiv^Ml  hy  tclejfraph  on  the  lUl  of  May. 


^ 

'■      ■  y   f 

■H'O  i 

;  '■  1  i 

■ 

^Ite^ii 


488  TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 

[From  Uritisb  Blue  Book  "North  Ameiicii,"  No.  'J,  p.  G.] 

Xo.  :;i. 
E(i)i  Grancille  to  Sir  E.  Thornton. 

[Kxtr.U't.] 

FoiiEHiN  Office,  ^k^^J  (»,  1872. 

With  rcicH'once  to  my  (lisi»iitcU  of  tlic  iM  instiint,  I  lui  ve  to  statu  to  you 
that  General  Schcnck  iutbrnied  lue  Uist  night  of  the  instructions  he  hail 
received  from  Mr.  Fish. 

In  the  first  phice,  he  mentioned  an  objection  wliich  liad  occurred  to 
himself.  lie  thought  that  the  sentence  "without  prejudice  to  the  argu- 
ment heretofore  advanced  by  Her  Majesty's  Government,"  ought  to  be 
"  withont  prejudice  to  the  arguments  heretofore  advanced  by  either 
party.'' 

Ii/  did  not  appear  from  what  he  said  that  Mr.  Fish  objected  to  tlie 
preface — at  least,  has  not  criticised  it. 

I  observed  that  the  preface  was  ours,  and  did  net  commit  the  United 
States  Government. 

General  Schenck  then  proceeded  >  sty  that  Mr.  Fish  objected  to 
embodying  in  the  proposal  the  declar;.  at  "  Her  Majesty's  Govcru- 

inent  adhere  to  their  view  that  it  is  not  \'        n  the  provin(;e  of  tlie  Arl)i 
tratoi'S  to  consider  or  to  decide  upon  the  (;.aims  for  indirect  losses,  viz, 
the  transfer  of  the  American  shipping,  »S:c.'' 

Mr.  Fish  considers  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  insert  in  a  statement, 
of  what  is  to  be  agreed  ui)on,  an  insertion  as  to  tlie  i)rincii)le  on  wliicli 
the  two  parties  differ.  The  United  States  Government  could  not,  in  liis 
opinion,  enter  ui)on  a  basis  of  an  agreement  recognizing  a  principle  of 
coinluct  and  action  whieh  they  do  not  admit. 

Mr.  Fish  also  objected  to  tlie  phrases  "  in  similar  cases  and  similar 
circumstances."  No  two  cases  are  similar,  and  circumstances  similar 
to  those  arising  during  the  rebellion  in  AnuH'ica  (^aimot  occur  in  Groat 
IJritain.  Couse»iuently,  tlie  terms  of  the  proposed  agreement  guarantee 
nothing  to  the  United  States,  lie  prefers  the  language  whi(!h  he  used, 
'•  that  Iler  Majesty's  Government  stipulates  for  the  future,  that  should 
(Jreat  Britain  l)e  a  belligerent,  and  the  UnitiMl  Slates  a  neutral,  and 
should  there  be  any  failure  on  the  part  of  the  Ui.ited  States  to  observe 
their  neutral  oltligations,  (ireat  IJritain  ■will  make  or  advance  no  com- 
plaints or  claims  against  the  United  States  by  reason  or  on-accoiint  of 
any  indirect,  remote,  or  consefpieutial  damages,  the  result  ot  such 
failure." 

General  Sclien(;k  said  he  ju'eferred  that  language.  L  replied  that  I 
could  not  agree  with  him  in  this  resp(»ct,  but  I  thought  the  words  which 
I  had  given  to  him  before  he  dictated  to  me  his  scheme  of  a  draught  note 
would  meet  this  objection. 

Mr.  Fish  adheres  to  having  some  exi)ression  of  opinion  from  the  Arbi- 
trators as  to  the  admissibility  of  indirect  claims,  insisting  that  it  is 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Tribunal  to  consider  that  question. 

He  insists  also  that  there  i  v,\\\  be  nothing  from  which  it  is  to  be 
implied  that  any  part  of  the  United  States  Case  is  withdra^'n.  Gen- 
eral Schenck  then  said  that  he  wished  to  make  a  suggestion,  although 
without  instructions.  I  observed  that  there  must  be  a  limit  to  these 
suggestions  stated  to  be  without  instructions. 

lie  believes  tiuit  the  whole  thing  nuiy  be  simplified  by  stripping  tlie 
proposal  of  all  that  is  unnecessary,  and  preserving  that  which  is  agreed 


CORRE.SPONDEXCE    UESPECTING    GENEVA    AKBITKATION.      489 


),  1872. 

to  to  you 
IS  he  hail 

cuneil  to 
the  iii'ffu- 
•  ht  to  1»(' 
by  oithci' 

id  to  till' 

le  United 

)ieeted  to 
s (roveiu- 
the  Arhi- 
isses,  viz, 

;tatenu'iit, 

on  Avhich 

not,  in  his 

•ineiple  of 

I  similar 

;  siniilai' 

in  (livat 

uavantee 

he  used. 

it  should 

utnil,  and 

>  obsei'N'e 

3  no  eoin- 

eeount  of 

ot   sueh 

ed  that  I 

ds  whieh 

ught  note 

tlie  Avbi- 
thiit  it  is 
on. 

Ik  to  be 

ivn.    (Ion- 

[iilthoush 

to  these 

i.ping  the 
is  a}?reed 


I 


between  the  parties,  without  Ji  statement  of  the  views  of  either  or  the 
claims  of  either.  He  could  understand  why  ]\[r.  Fish  objects  to  havinj^' 
it  dechired  that  there  is  any  witlulrawal  of  any  part  of  the  Case;  but  if 
the  thing  be  virtually  done,  why,  (leneral  Sciienck  observed,  give  it  a 
name  ? 

I3ut  he  also  understood  why  (irreat  Britain,  making  an  agreement 
which  amounts  to  a  settlement  on  this  point,  should  uot  want — or  con- 
sent to  ask — the  opinion  of  the  Arbitrators  on  that  agreement,  kle  had 
dr.aughted  a  brief  statementof  the  mutual  proposal  which  he  submitted  to 
me,  and  would  also  ask  Mr.  Fish  if  it  were  possible  for  the  President  to 
assent  to  it,  if  presented  by  Her  Majesty's  Government  in  this  form,  as 
a  substitute  for  that  already  communicated  to  him. 

He  did  this  w  ithout  obtaining  for  it  Mr.  Fish's  instructions,  and  for 
the  present  therefore  entirely  couhdentiall}-.  General  Schenck  pro- 
ceeded to  read  the  following  statement : 

Ttor  Majesty's  Govei'iimcnt  arc  now  ready  to  state  that  if  the  United  C  iitcs  Avill 
and  do  agieo  not  to  press  for  a  pecuniary  award  bi^tbre  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at 
(ieneva;  on  account  of  claims  for  indirect  losses  or  damages,  viz,  for  the  increased  pre- 
miums of  insurance,  tin;  transfer  of  American  shippinjf,  and  tlie  prolongiition  of  the 
war,  then  Her  Majesty';.  Government  will  and  do  engiige,  on  their  part,  and  stipulatf* 
rliiit  should  Great  Britain  at  any  time  in  the  future  bo  a  belligerent  while  the  L'nitcfl 
-fates  is  a  neutral,  ami  should  there  bo  any  failure  on  tlio  part  of  the  United  States  to 
observe  their  neutral  obligations,  (Jreat  Britain  will  make  or  advance  no  complaints  or 
ihiims  against  the  United  States  by  reason  or  on  accountof  any  indirect,  remote,  or  conse- 
M'ljuential  results  of  such  failure.  This  rule  or  priiu:iii!e  not  to  advance  or  press  coiii- 
plaiuts  or  claims  for  indirect,  remote,  or  consequential  damages,  to  l>e  luutiuilly  and 
ifciltrocaliy  ol>served  l)y  botli  parties  in  the  future. 

The  notes  which  are  exchanged  on  this  subject  to  be  [>resented  to  the  Tribunal  ot 
Arbitration,  and  entered  on  its  record. 

I  told  General  Schenck  that  J.  could  not  give  him  any  formal  ans\ver 
without  consulting  my  colleagues;  but  I  desired  to  impress  upon  him  that, 
individually,  I  was  perfectly  convinced  such  a  (h-aught  would  not  further 
in  any  degree  the  negotitition.  He  obser^e.^  tlnit  it  had  no  ofliciiil  char- 
acter; that  it  was  only  a  suggestion  of  his  o\,u,  and  that  it  would  only 
have  validity  if  agreed  to  by  Her  jMajesty's  Government  and  by  Mr. 
iMsh.  He  continued  to  say,  that  the  only  chance  of  an  agreement  Avas 
for  each  party  to  consider  what  modifications  each  should  make  with  a. 
view  to  an  approximation;  and  that  this  would  be  more  easily  arr.\-ed 
at  by  leaving  out  all  unnecessary  matter.  I  told  him  that,  generally 
speaking,  1  was  sure  my  colleagues  did  not  desire  to  introduce  any  un- 
necessary words.  They  only  desired  tluit  the  meaning  of  what  was 
agreed  upon  should  be  perfectly  clear;  that  no  jmssible  misunderstand- 
ing should  arise.  For  instance,  the  words  which  he  ])rererred  as  to  not 
pressing  for  a  pecuniary  award,  instead  of  those  proposed  by  us,  ''  not 
to  have  regard  .  .  .  to,"<S:c. ;  if  there  was  no  (trrirre  pensre,  yvhut 
could  be  the  objection  to  the  latter  ? 

General  Schenck  repudiated  the  idea  that  there  could  be  an  arru-re 
pcnsce,  and  he  himself  thought  the  two  phra.ses  cjiine  substantially  to 
the  same  thing,  but  that  his  instructions  adhered  to  the  lirst.  He  did 
uot  understand  how  hi.s  words,  if  communiciited  to  and  reconled  by  the 
Arbitrators,  would  admit  of  a  doubt. 

He  hoped  we  should  take  his  draught,  modifying  it  as  little  as  was 
possible  for  us  to  do.  He  had  telegraphed  to  Mr.  Fish  everything  that  1 
had  communicated  to  him.  He  had  asked  Mr.  Fish  to  tell  him  whether 
he  on  his  part  would  agree  to  the  note  of  wliich  he  liad  Just  given  mo  a 
copy  ;  and  he  had  begged  him  to  .send  him  back  our  draught  altered  as 
he  wished  it  to  be,  and  the  form  of  assent  which  Mv.  Fish  was  retuly  to 
give. 


Ml' 


it-,  m 

1:1 '    '1*11 


490 


TKKATV    OF    WA8HIN(rrON. 


[Krdiii  Ihitisli  Blue  IJook  "North  Aineiii  ii,"  No.  'J,  (l-*7'^.)  p.  7.] 

Xo,  32. 


Earl  Granrilh'  to  *S7/-  E.  Thornton. 

FoKEKJN  Office,  Mmj  0,  1872. 

8iK  :  With  roforonco  to  i»y  other  Uispatcli  of  this  day'.s  dato,  I  trans 
iiiit  to  you  lierewith,  for  your  information,  a  copy  of  a  revised  drauRlit 
which  I  ffiive  coiiti<kMitialiy  to  (Jcneral  Scihcnck,  after  consultation  with 
the  Cabinet. 

I  pointed  out  to  him  that  we  had  left  out  the  sentence  objected  to  by 
him,  "without  prejudice,"  <S:c.,  on  condition  that  no  conver.se  proposi 
tion  should  appear  in  the  an.swer  from  Mr.  Fish. 

That  we  had  omitted  the  whole  of  the  sentence  objected  to  by  .Mr. 
Fi.sh,  "Her  Majesty's  Government  adheres,"  ike. 

That  we  had  left  out  the  words,  "in  similar  cases  and  in  similar  cir 
cumstances,"  and  have  further  modified  the  .sentence  as  to  the  principle 
whick  will  bind  both  nations  for  the  future. 

That  we  had  adopted  General  Schenck's  la.st  parasraph. 

General  Schenck  said  he  would  telegraph  the  revi.sed  draught  this  even- 
ing, but  would  give  no  opinion  on  it. 


I  am,  «S:c 


GIJANVILLK. 


Iiiclosuic  ill  No.  :Vi. 

Draught  of  letUr  from  Juirl  UruuriUc  to  (lencrnl  Srhcnck,  an  girru  to  Gciivra}  Schnirlhij  Eurl 

Uraiivilh;  May  (3,  1872. 

Sii! :  I  li.'^e  laid  before  my  colleajjucs  the  dispateli  addrcHsed  to  you  by  Mr.  Tish  mi 
the  IGth  ultimo,  of  which  you  furiiislied  me  with  a  eo})y  on  the  l.st  instant. 

I  informed  you  in  my  lettt'r  of  the  '20th  of  March  last  that  Her  Majesty's  Government, 
in  conimunicating  to  you  the  grounds  on  which  they  hold  that  the  claims  for  indirtnt 
lo.sses  are  excluded  from  the  scope  and  intent'  ^n  of  the  reference  to  the  Tribunal  ol 
Arbitration  at  Geneva,  did  not  wish  to  commence  a  diplomatic  controversy,  but  merely 
to  comply  with  the  desire  substantially  expressed  by  the  Government  of  the  rnited 
'iices  to  be  advised  of  the  reasons  which  had  prompted  the  declaration  made  by  me 
on  behalf  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  on  the  ;5d  of  February. 

Her  Majesty's  Government  are  still  of  the  same  mind,  and  althouf^h  they  cannot  ad- 
mit the  force  of  the  partial  rejoinder  which  Mr.  Fish  has  made  to  that  statement  ol 
their  reasons,  they  agree  with  Mr.  Fish  in  seeing  uo  advantage  in  the  continuance  of  iiii 
argumentative  discussion  on  the  subject. 

It  will,  however,  be  understood  that  if  I  do  not  review  the  matter  of  Jlr.  Fish's  dis- 
jtatcli  it  is  not  from  an  assent  to  his  positions,  but  from  the  hope  that  a  way  may  Ih' 
found  to  avoid  further  controversy. 

Ill  the  lull  expectation,  therefore,  that  an  arrangement  satisfactory  to  both  L.nintrits 
will  bo  accepted  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  I  proceed  to  state  the  views 
of  Her  Majesty's  Government. 

Her  Majesty's  Government  are  ready  to  engage  that,  in  the  event  of  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  agreeing  that  the  Arbitrators  are  not  to  have  regard  in  any  awiUil 
that  they  may  make  to  the  claims  for  indirect  losses,  viz,  the  transfer  of  the  American 
shipping,  the  increased  premiums  of  insurance,  and  the  prolongation  of  the  war,  Her 
Majesty's  (iovernment  will,  on  their  part,  agree  that  the  view  which  they  have  hereto- 
fore presented  of  such  claims  shall  be  their  principle  of  future  action  and  conduct,  and 
they  are  ready,  in  pursuance  of  the  recognition  of  such  principle,  to  give  assurance  to 
the  United  States,  that,  if  Great  Britain  should  at  any  time  hereafter  be  a  belligerent 
while  the  United  States  are  neutral.  Great  Britain  will  never  advance  any  claims  incon- 
sistent with  that  principle;  such  an  engagement  for  the  future  being  reciprocally  given 
by  both  jtarties.  The  notes  which  are  exchanged  on  this  subject  to  be  presented  to  tlie 
Tribunal  of  Arbitration,  and  entered  on  its  record. 


COKUKSl'ONDHNC'K    HKSPKCTIXG    (JKNKVA    ARHITKATION.      401 

No.  :i;5. 

Mr.  Fixh  to  General  Schem'l:. 


G,  ISTl'. 
0, 1  traiih 
1  drau{>iit 
itiou  with 

L'tod  to  by 
id  proposi- 

to  by  :\lr. 

ninilar  cii- 
L'  principle 


ttliisc'voii- 


^VILLK. 


■hurl: hj  Kari 


V  Mr.  Fi.'^li  I'll 
it. 

GoveiniMt".il. 

IS  for  imlircct 

Tri1»iuivl  <>t 

,  but  incri'ly 

the  rnitud 

lutide  by  me 

ey  cannot  ail- 
statenieiit  ot 
imiauce  of  an 

\lv.  Fish's  <lis- 
X  way  may  1h' 

)oth  i.Mintrif' 
;ate  the  \ iuws 

;  Govcrniut'iit 
ill  any  awaitl 
the  American 
the  -war,  Ihr 
have  hercto- 
i  conduct,  ami 
assnrauco  to 
a  belligerent 
claims  inoon- 
procally  given 
esented  to  tlic 


[Telejjriim.] 

AVA8iiiN(iT()N,  Mail  7,  1872. 

Tlie  rie.sidcnt  Oiunistly  «k\sire.s  to  do  everythiiif?  consistent  with  his 
iluty  to  tlie  country  and  with  the  great  interests  to  the  future  of  both 
(lovernnients,  and  to  the  principles  so  important  to  eivil:/;vtion  as  are 
involved  in  the  Treaty,  to  avoid  the  possibility  of  its  failure.  This  CJov- 
ernnient  is  of  opinion  that  the  submission  of  what  are  called  the  indirect 
daim.s  is  within  the  intent  of  the  Treaty,  and  that  the  consideration  of 
those  claims  is  witiiin  the  province  of  the  Tribunal.  The  President  alone 
lias  not  the  power  to  chan}>e  or  alter  the  terms  or  the  ]>rinciples  of  a 
treaty,  lie  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  suggestion  expressed  in  iny  in- 
struction of  L*7th  April  went  to  the  extent  of  his  authority,  acting  with- 
out the  assent  of  the  Senate.  The  projiosal  submitted  in  your  telegram 
of  last  eveuing  is  ba.sed  upon  a  theory  antagonistic  to  this  princi[>le. 

The  Tresident  is  anxious  to  exhaust  all  proper  etl'orts  to  reach  a  set- 
tlement of  the  important  (piestions  and  the  vast  interests  to  two  States, 
submitted  'o  the  Tribuiud  of  Arbitration,  if  it  can  be  done  without  the 
.sacrilice  of  a  principle  and  consistently'  with  the  tlignily  ami  the  honor 
of  the  Government. 

lie  will,  therefore,  be  willing  to  consider,  and,  if  possible,  will  present 
lor  the  con.sideration  of  the  Senate,  any  new  article  which  may  be  i>ro- 
Ito.sed  by  the  IJritish  Government,  which,  while  it  settles  the  princii)!e 
involved  in  the  presiMitation  of  what  are  called  the  indirect  claims,  will 
remove  the  ditlerences  which  have  arisen  between  the  two  Governments 
iu  their  constructions  of  the  Treatv. 

risii. 


No.  34, 


General  iSchcnelc  to  Mr.  Fish. 
[  To !  eg  ram —  F.  x  t  ra  e  t .  ] 

London,  .l/^n/  7,  1S72. 

Your  telegram  of  yesterday  was  received  this  morning. 

x\fter  soire  di.scussiou,  Lord  Kus-selTs  motion  was  postponed  yester- 
day to  next  .Sionday,  on  Lord  Granville's  [)romise  that  on  or  before  that 
(lay  he  would  produce  the  correspondence  or  make  a  statement  as  to  the 
position  of  the  negotiations  now  going  on.  This  was  only  acceded  to 
upon  a  distinct  assurance  being  given  that  the  Government  would  not 
retract  its  position,  that  the  claims  for  indirect  damages  are  not  within 
the  intention  and  scope  of  the  reference.  To  this  I  am  sure  they  will 
adhere  if  no  agreement  or  adjustment  be  made  between  now  and  next 
Monday.  I  have  little  doubt  that  they  will  make  a  declaration  which 
will  be  decisive  against  submission  to  arbitration,  and  will  have  the 
nearly,  if  not  quite,  unanimous  support  of  both  Houses  of  Parliament. 
Desirable  and  important  as  it  is  to  both  parties  and  to  all  nations  to 
have  a  decision  of  the  Arbitrators,  that  a  nation  is  not  responsible  in 


Ml 


•'I 


Bt    1 


m 


402 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


peciiniiiry  daiiia^'os  for  consoiiuentlal  results  of  failiiro  to  observe  neu- 
tral obligations,  I  see  no  chance  of  jjettinrr  this  (loverninent  to  a<;re(' 
in  terms  to  a  submission  so  as  to  obtain  such  decision;  they  will  not 
consent  no  unite  in  asking  the  Tribunal  for  an  opinion  on  the  (juestion. 
although  wo  assure  them  that  we  expect,  and  they  have  every  reason 
to  feel  confident,  that  that  opinion  would  be  against  aflirming  such 
national  responsibility. 

The  above  portion  of  this  telegram  I  have  read  to  Lord  Granvillo, 
and  have  his  admission  that  it  is  a  correct  statement.  May  I  hop«>  that 
if  you  do  not  mean  to  decide  that  no  other  way  can  be  found  out  of  the 
controversy,  and  therefore  the  arbitration  and  Treaty  must  fail,  you  will 
conclude  to  instruct  me  explicitly  on  their  proposals  (!omniuni(!ato(i  to 
you  in  my  telegrams  of  the  ."ith  and  0th  ? 

#  *  *  #  #  #  *  * 

SCIIKNCK. 


[Fnnii  lliitisli  Itliii'  Udok  "Xortli  Aiiitiic  a."  No.  '.',  (I'^'TQ.)  p.  •^.'] 

Xo.    '.J~). 

IauI  Hr<(i>fUlv  io  ^ir  IL  TItonilon. 


[Kxtiiii-t.] 

FoiiE[(iN  Office,  May  7,  187-'. 

General  Schenck  called  on  me  to-day,  and  read  to  me  a  telegraphic 
message  from  3Ir.  Fish,  of  which  he  did  not  give  me  a  copy,  but  tho 
substance  of  which  Avas  to  the  following  etil'ect : 

An  agreement  to  bind  for  the  future  would  seem  to  require  theassonr 
of  the  Senate,  but  if  the  Arbitrators  were  to  give  a  decision  on  tiie  case 
which  is  now  before  them  it  would  be  settling  the  ([uestion  for  the 
future. 

If,  under  these  circumstances,  the  Jlritish  (lovernment  want  to  open 
negotiations  for  detlning  the  extent  of  liability  for  conse(iuential  dam- 
ages resulting  from  a  fiftlure  of  observance  of  neutral  obligations,  tin' 
Tresident  would  consider  carefully  any  proi)osal  in  that  direction. 

I  told  (fcncral  St'henck  that  the  only  meaning  I  could  attribute  to 
the  message  was,  that  ^[r.  Fish  nmintained  the  position  to  which  Gen- 
eral Schenck  was  aware  Her  ]MaJesty's  Government  could  not  assent. 

General  Schenck  then  proceeded  to  read  me  a  draught  of  a  message 
which  he  had  sent. 

The  message  described  what  had  passed  in  the  House  of  Lords  on  the 
Gth  instant  correctly  up  to  a  certain  point,  but  made  some  statements 
as  to  the  assurances  of  the  Government  which  were  not  accurate.  He 
stated  that  the  motion  of  Lord  llussell  had  oidy  been  deferred  on  the 
assurance  of  the  Government  that  we  would  not  appear  before  the  Tribu- 
nal of  Arbitration  unless  some  settlement  was  previously  made. 

It  went  on  to  declare  his  conviction  that  we  should  adhere  to  this 
resolve  that  Lord  Russell's  motion  would  be  carried  nearly  unanimous- 
ly. A  i  he  further  declared,  while  recapitulating  the  reasons  why  the 
matter  i^hould  be  referred  to  arbitration,  viz,  in  order  to  have  the  matter 
finally  settled,  and  that  it  was  certain  tliattlie  Arbitrators  would  decide 


'TWf'r 


COKRKSPON'DEXCK    RESPECTING!    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.      493 

agaiiiHt  the  indirect  claims,  yet  the  Englisli  Government  would  never 
allow  the  indirect  claims  to  be  submitted  to  Arbitration. 

He  stated  ho  believed  his  message  was  correct.  I  said  that  I  had  no 
objection  to  tell  him  that  the  statement  of  what  had  passed  in  the  Uouse 
of  Lords  was  not  historically  accurate,  as  I  had  only  given  the  assurancti 
that  1  had  nothing  to  withikaw  or  retract  from  what  I  had  said  last  year 
or  this  in  Parliament. 

As  to  his  view  of  the  course  which  Ilor  Majesty's  Government  were 
likely  to  take,  he  was  aware  that  while  1  had  avoided  anything  which 
might  be  quoted  as  an  ollicial  menace,  he  had  himself  freriuently  told 
me  that  he  was  perfectly  aware,  from  the  tone  of  my  language,  of  the 
resolution  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  refuse  to  submit  the  iiulirect 
claims  to  Arbitration,  and  that  Thad  therefore  no  wish  to  object  to  his 
j^iving  his  own  opinion  to  his  (Government. 


n 


ill 


No.  30. 
Mr.  Fish  to  General  ^Schench-. 


[Tek'jjram.] 

* 

AVashlngton,  Maij  8,  1872. 

All  the  propositions  made  by  the  British  Government  involve  covertly, 
probably  without  design,  what  this  Government  cannot  agree  to,  namely, 
the  withdrawal  from  the  province  of  the  Tribunal  what  we  believe  to 
he  entirely  within  their  competence,  i  need  not  repeat  our  conviction 
that  the  Arbitrators  have  the  right  to  decide  whether  the  claims  to  which 
Great  Britain  objects  are  or  are  not  admissible,  and  that  the  United 
States  will  be  content  to  abide  their  deciision,  whether  favorable  or 
adverse  to  that  class  of  claims. 

The  lU'oposition  of  the  British  Government  is  upon  the  basis  that  the 
view  which  they  have  heretofore  presented  shall  be  a  principle  of  future 
action  and  conduct.  The  view  which  they  have  presented  is  not  a 
principle,  but  an  opinion  as  to  the  construction  of  a  specific  treaty,  and 
is  av)plicable  only  to  one  pending  ditterenee  on  an  incidental  and  tempo- 
rary question,  and  cannot  l>e  a  principle  of  future  action.  This  Gov- 
ernment holds  a  directly  opi)osite  view  with  regard  to  the  competence 
of  the  Tribunfil  to  consider  the  validity  of  the  claims,  and,  although 
sincerely  desirous  of  coming  to  an  honorable  understanding,  cannot 
adopt  tiie  British  view,  or  make  it  the  Jvisis  of  a  recii>rocal  engage- 
ment. 

In  my  telegram  of  yesterday  I  exidained  that  the  President  cannot, 
and  will  not,  withdraw  any  part  of  what  has  been  submitted  within  his 
construction  of  the  intent  and  spirit  of  the  Treaty.  If  the  British  Gov- 
iTument  i)ersists  in  their  demand,  the  responsibility  of  whatever  failure 
of  the  Treatj'^  may  ensue  must  rest  with  them,  as  you  will  have  advised 
them  of  the  impossibility,  resulting  as  well  from  the  constitutional  ina- 
hility  of  the  President  to  withdraw  what  this  Government  is  of  opinion 
has  been  iiubmitted  within  the  intent  and  meaning  of  the  Treaty,  as 
from  his  unwillingness  to  compromise  the  rights  and  the  dignity  of  the 
Government  by  yielding  to  a  demand  not  founded  on  right  or  sustained 
by  any  valid  construction  of  the  Treaty. 

He  hopes,  however,  that  the  British  Government  may  see  the  way  to 


:  '  I- 


% 


494 


TREATY    OV    WAHIIINGTON. 


maintain  tlio  Treaty  in  tlio  .sujjj-ostion  of  a  now  article,  as  njontioiied  in 
my  tele;,niun  of  yesterday.  Hliouhl  tliey  not  a«lo|)t  this  sngj^estion,  tiif 
int'eren(!c  will  be  alnK)st  nnavoidahle  that  th«'y  have  deliberately  deter- 
mined to  abrojiate  the  Treaty.  If,  however,  they  adopt  the  siij;j;estion, 
you  may  say  thai  the  ]»robability  is  that  Congress  will  atljourn  about 
the  latter  i)art  of  this  month.  Time  may  l)e  saved,  therefore,  if  nej^o- 
tiations  on  th's  point  shonld  bo  con<lu(te<l  here  ratiier  than  in  liOndoii. 
If  they  desire  such  nofi'otiations,  it  may  be  advisable  to  save  time  that 
they  give  instructions  to  their  IMinister  here. 

You  will  keep  me  advised  as  to  the  jirobable  action  of  the  Britisli 
(Jovernment,  so  that  the  President  may  communicatee  the  correspondence 
to  Conjjress  on  .Monday,  in  case  the  Uritish  (lovernmeut  intends  to 
break  the  Treaty. 

FISH. 


[Fniiii  Hiitish  WUw  Ii<.(ik  "  Xoitli  Aiiiciicii.'  N...  i»,  (18T-3.>  p.  0.] 

2so.  37. 
IJarl  GnoicUlc  to  Sir  E.  Thornton. 

FoKEiCf-N  Office,  May  S,  1872. 

SiiJ :  \Vith  reference  to  my  dis])atch  of  yesterday,  I  have  to  state  to 
you  that  I  received  a  note  from  (Jeneral  Schenck  this  morning,  askinj,' 
mo  to  postpone  the  Cabinet,  as  he  had  Jnst  received  a  long  telegraphic 
message  in  cipher  from  his  Government,  of  the  substance  of  which  he 
would  inform  me  at  the  Foreign  Ollice  at  half-past  3  o'clock. 

General  Schenck  accordingly  called  upon  me  in  the  afternoon,  and 
informed  me  that  the  United  States  Government  claim,  and  insist  upon 
their  claim,  that  under  the  Treaty  the  claims  for  indirect  losses  wliicli 
have  been  put  forward  are  admissible  to  be  considered  by  the  Arbitra- 
tors, although  they  do  not  expect,  and  never  have  expected,  a  pecu- 
niary award  of  damages  for  such  claims.  Great  Britain  denies  that 
such  claims  come  within  the  scope  or  province  of  the  Arbitrators  to  con- 
sider or  decide  upon. 

The  argumentative  discussion  has  ended,  leaving  each  party  adhering 
to  their  position. 

The  United  States  Government  in  this  condition  of  things  have  been 
Avilling  to  accept  a  proposal  from  Great  Britain,  that,  in  consideration 
of  not  pressing  for  a  pecuniary  award  on  these  indirect  claims,  Great 
Britain  would,  on  her  part,  agree  to  engage  not  to  advance  in  the  future 
in  any  case  when  she  should  be  a  belligerent,  and  the  United  States 
neutral,  such  claims  for  indirect  damages  as  are  put  forward  by  the 
United  States  Government  in  the  Case  presented  on  their  behalf  to  the 
Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  Geneva,  and  to  make  that  reciprocally  tbe 
rule  for  the  future.  Great  Britain  is  understood  to  object  to  this-  f>u 
the  ground  that  an  agreement  not  to  press  for  compensation  for  these 
indirect  claims  is  not  sufficient,  because  the  Arbitrators  in  that  case 
might  themselves  proceed  to  take  them  into  consideration,  and  make 
them  tbe  subject  of  an  award,  and  therefore  Great  Britain  has  only  been 
willing  to  establish  the  rule  in  regard  to  indirect  damages  on  condition 
that  the  American  part  of  the  Case  at  Geneva,  which  puts  forward 
these  particular  claims,  should  be  entirely  withdrawn  from  the  cousid- 


Mitioiu'd  ill 
I'stioii,  til*' 
itrly  lU'iter- 
ia};Kt'«tioii, 
DUiu  uboiir 
re,  if  noj«(>- 
,11  liOinloii. 
',  time  that 


tlio  British 

.'spoiulcnco 

intends  to 

FISH. 


.'■] 


(ij  S,  1872. 
',  to  state  to 
iiing,  asking; 
telegraphic 
bf  which  he 

'rnoon,  and 

insist  upon 

rsses  which 

the  Arbitra- 

ed,  a  pecii- 

denies  that 

ators  to  con- 

vty  adhering 

s  liave  been 
onsideratioii 
aims,  Great 
in  the  future 
nited  States 
vard  by  the 
)ehalf  to  the 
procally  the 
i  to  this-  f^ii 
Bon  for  these 
in  that  case 
1,  and  make 
las  only  been 
on  couditiou 
)uts  forward 
the  consid- 


COUKKSI'OXDKNCE    RESPKrTIX(}    GEXKVA    ARISITKATIOX.      495 

oration  of  the  Arbitrators.  Tlie  Presi<h'nt  holds  that  he  has  power  to 
fjive  instruetions  in  ref;ard  to  tin;  management  of  the  case  before  the 
Arbitrators,  and  tlnuefore  could  direct  that  tiiese  claims  should  not  be 
pressed  for  an  award.  Jhit,  i.iasmucli  as  the  tJovernment  of  the  United 
States  hold  that  the  claims  are  admissible  to  be  consichued  by  the  Arbi- 
trators under  the  Treaty,  he  cannot  withdraw  tiie  claims  as  not  being 
riglitfully  put  tbrward  without  its  being  such  an  alteration  of  the  terms 
ami  principles  of  the  Treaty  as  is  inconsistent  with  his  umlerstanding 
of  it,  and  the  inter]»retation  which  has  been  put  upon  it  by  his  Govern- 
ment. 

The  treaty  itself,  however,  may  be  ajnended  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
accomplish  the  object,  and  remove  all  ditt'erences  between  the  two  Gov- 
erinnents  arising  out  of  their  different  interpretations  of  its  provisions. 

General  Schenck  is,  therefore,  authorized  to  state  that  the  President 
will  be  willing  to  consider,  ami,  if  possible,  will  present  for  the  consid- 
eration of  the  Senate  any  new  article  for  the  Treaty  which  may  be  pro- 
posed by  the  British  Government,  which,  while  it  settles  the  i)rinciple 
involved  in  the  presentation  of  what  are  called  the  indirect  claims,  will 
remove  the  ditt'erences  which  have  arisen  between  the  two  Governments 
in  the  consideration  of  the  Treaty. 

The  President  is  earnestly  desirous  to  do  everything  consistent  with 
bis  duty  and  with  the  great  interest  for  the  future  of  both  countries, 
and  to  preserve  principles  so  important  to  civilization  as  he  thiidvs  are 
involved  in  the  Treaty  of  which  he  is  anxious  to  in-event  the  failure, 
and  to  this  end  he  is  willing  to  exhaust  all  proper  etlorts  as  far  as  can 
be  done  without  abandoning  any  principle,  and  consistently  with  the 
honor  and  dignity  of  both  Governments. 

General  Shenck  said  he  had  no  instruction  to  suggest  anything  in  re- 
lation to  the  form  of  words  in  which  such  an  otfer  bj"^  Great  Britain 
might  be  embodied.  But  it  seems  to  him  there  might  be  three  modes 
of  framing  such  an  amendment  to  the  Treaty,  either  of  which  would 
accomplish  the  object. 

1st.  It  might  be  recited  that  w'hereas  ditt'erences  of  opinion  have 
arisen  between  the  two  countries  in  relation  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
Treaty  of  Washington  as  it  relates  to  the  right  of  the  United  States  to 
put  forward  before  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  Geneva  a  claim  for 
certain  damages  which,  in  their  Case,  are  denominated  indirect  dam- 
ages, in  consideration  of  the  withdrawal  of  those  claims  from  the  Case 
and  from  the  consideration  of  the  Arbitrators,  Great  Britain  engages 
with  the  United  States  that  she  will  not  at  any  time  hereafter,  in  the 
event  of  the  United  States  being  a  neutral  when  Great  Britain  is  a  bel- 
ligerent, advance  any  complaint  oi  claims  for  such  indirect,  remote,  or 
consequential  damages  arising  from  any  failure  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States  in  the  discharge  of  her  neutral  obligations. 

2d.  liCt  the  Article  to  be  agreed  upon  leave  out  any  reference  to  the 
Case  which  has  been  presented  at  Geneva,  establish  the  rule  as  above, 
and  the  United  States  give  instructions  to  its  Agent  to  withdraw  those 
indirect  claims,  reciting  them  particularly  whenever  an  exchange  of 
latiticatious  of  the  amendment  to  the  Treaty  shall  be  made  3  and  a  copy 
of  these  instructions  to  be  communicated  to  Great  Britain. 

3d.  Establish  by  agreement  in  the  same  manner  a  rule  against  indi- 
rect damages,  and  i)rovide  that  such  rule  shall  relate  back  to  and  be 
held  and  taken  as  a  part  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  the  same  as  if 
tbis  Article  had  been  executed  at  the  date  of  that  Treaty. 


TffT 

HI  H 

i 

1   ' 

1 

:  1 
1 

^'i 

I  1 

*l 

* 

I  am,  &c.. 


GRANVILLE. 


.  ■  1 

4 

' '  1  jiikial 

40fi  Tfv'HATV    OK    WASHINGTON. 

[From  HritiMh  IHiU'  Jloi.k  "North  Auhmmcu,"  No.  '.',  (l-'T'J,)  p.  Id. J 

■  No.  38. 
I'htrl  (innivilli'  to  Sir  E.  Thnrnlon. 

[Kxtrait.] 

FouKKJN  OiricE,  ,1/rn/ s,  JSTl', 
Witlj  icrorcnc-ii  to  my  other  dispatch  of  this  (hvy's  date,  1  ha\c  tti 
iiiforiii  you  that  I  saw  (ioncial  Schouck  aj^aiu  after  the  lueetins  of  the 
Cabinet,  .'iiul  tohl  him  that  the  Cabinet  liad  considered  the  report  which 
I  made  to  them  of  our  conversation  of  this  morning,  the  njessaj>e  from 
3Ir.  Fi{ih,  and  the  tliree  personal  suggestions  of  Cieneral  Hchenck  as  to 
the  mode  of  executing  Mr.  Fish's  proposals. 

1  stilted  that  they  saw  objections  to  the  three  modes  proposed,  and  were 
not  themselves  prepared  to  frame  an  Article.  They  thought  it  would  be 
better  to  return  to  the  i)roposal  of  an  interchange  of  notes.  They  un- 
derstood that  the  i)roposal  of  an  Article  was  intended  by  Mr.  Fish  to 
obviate  a  ditUculty  occasioned  by  the  form  of  words  as  to  the  agreement 
which  the  United  States  was  to  make.  Tliey  were  willing  to  substitute 
for  the  words  "  having  regard,"  &c.,  the  words,  "  will  not  bring  the  in- 
<lirect  claims  before  the  Tribunal"  for  consideration. 

If  required  to  do  so,  I  could  give  some  explanation  of  the  principle 
*'  foumled  on  the  heretofore  i)resented,"  tS:c. 


No.  39. 

Oencral  Hchendx  to  Mr.  Fish. 
[Telc^Viuii.] 

London,  May  *J,  187l*. 

Had  interviews  with  Granville  yesterday  and  last  evening.  Cabinet 
long  in  session.  Instead  of  proposing  new  Article  to  Treaty,  they 
prefer  interchange  of  notes,  and  are  willing  to  further  modify  their 
note.  I  shall  tell  Lord  Granville  this  morning  that  in  your  telegram  of 
April  27  you  went  as  far  as  is  possible  to  go  without  concurrence  of 
Senate. 

Just  received  your  long  telegram  of  yesterday,  which  is  bein<i 
deciphered.  Will  receive  and  forward  mo  offer  until  I  know  what  it 
contains. 

SCIIENCK. 


No.  40. 

General  Schencl-  to  Mr.  Fish. 
[Telegram.] 

London,  May  9,  187-*. 
In   a   long  interview    with   Lord   Granville,  this   evening,  I  fully 
presented   and   urged  the   reviews  and  positions  contained  in  your 
telegram  of  yesterday.     I  find  this  Government  makes  a  great  and 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    OENEVA    ARBITRATION.      497 

apparcutly  iperable  objection  to  the  adoption  of  a  new  Article, 
on  the  ground  that  the  hinguage  describing  consequential  damages 
must  necessarily  be  so  broad  that  it  would  probably  commit  both 
Governments  beyond  what  they  would  either  of  them  wish  to  be 
bound.  They  prefer  an  interchange  of  notes,  because  by  that  form 
they  can  narrow  the  agreement  so  as  to  relate  only  to  the  actual  points 
or  subjects  of  difference.  I  have  stated  decidedly,  as  to  any  inter- 
change of  notes,  that  the  President,  without  the  assent  of  the  Senate, 
will  not  go  beyond  the  suggestion  made  in  your  telegram  of  April  27. 
Lord  Granville  seems  to  think  that,  so  far  as  the  difficulty  for  want  of 
constitutional  power  is  concerned,  the  President  might  perhaps  be 
willing  to  submit  notes  to  the  Senate  for  their  advice.  Would  he  do 
thatt 

I  asked  Lord  Granville,  as  you  instructed  me,  to  agree,  in  order  to  save 
time,  that  negotiation  on  this  point  may  be  conducted  at  Washington, 
but  he  declines.  It  would  relieve  me  from  a  painful  responsibility,  in- 
creased immeasurably  by  having  to  correspond  through  the  difficult  and 
unsatisfactory  medium  of  the  telegraph. 

His  Lordship's  last  words,  after  more  than  two  hours'  conversation, 

were  as  follows : 

I  carefully  avoid  anything  like  menace ;  but  in  consequence  of  the  views  and  in- 
formation you  have  presented  to  me  yesterday  and  to-day,  I  take  an  unfavorable  view 
of  the  chances  of  any  settlement. 

1  told  him  I  was  getting  to  be  of  the  same  mind. 

SCHENCK. 


No.  41. 


General  Schenclc  to  Mr.  Fish. 
[Telegram.] 

London,  May  9, 1872. 

Lord  Granville  proposed  to  modify  his  amended  note,  I  telegraphed 
you  on  the  6th,  by  substituting  "  They  will  not  bring  for  consideration 
the  indirect  claims  before  the  Arbitrators,"  for  the  words  "  The  Arbi- 
trators are  not  to  have  regard,  in  any  award  they  may  make,  to  the 
claims  for  indirect  losses." 

I  i)romised  him  I  would  submit  the  change  to  you,  but  thought  it 
would  be  considered  more  objectionable  than  before,  inasmuch  as  the 
United  States  insist  that  those  claims  are  now  rightfully  before  the 
Tribunal. 

SCHENCK. 


[From  British  Blue  Book  "North  America,"  No.  9,  (1872,)  p.  11.1 

No.  42. 
Earl  Granville  to  Sir  E.  Thornton. 

Foreign  Office,  May  9, 1872. 

Sib  :  General  Schenck  came  to  me  to-day  and  said  that  he  had  con- 
sidered the  communication  which  I  had  made  to  him  yesterday  evening, 
and  of  which  1  informed  you  in  my  dispatch  of  that  date. 

32  A— II 


49a 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON. 


He  expressed  bis  regret  that  the  Cabinet  see  so  much  objectiou  to  an 
attempt  to  settle  the  dift'erence  by  a  new  Article  to  be  added  to  the 
Treaty.    He  had  explained  to  me  the  ditficnlty  about  pursuing  the  plan 
of  a  settlement  by  an  interchange  of  notes  in  his  statement  mad«3  to  me 
yesterday,  and  he  desired  to  do  so  more  explicitly  this  morning. 

It  consisted  in  the  decided  opinion  of  the  President  that  he  had  gone 
as  far  as  ho  possibly  coula  without  the  assent  of  the  Senate  in  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  character  of  such  a  note  as  would  be  acceptable  or  as- 
sente<1  to  by  him,  in  the  telegram  of  the  21(h  of  April.  The  note  pre- 
sented for  hi.s  consideration  on  the  part  of  Her  Majesty's  Government, 
originally  and  as  afterwards  modified,  involves  what  the  Government 
^i  the  United  States  cannot  agree  to,  a  withdrawal  iVom  the  province 
of  the  Tribunal  of  what  that  (loverninent  believes  to  be  entirely  within 
its  competence  to  consider,  as  the  (iovernment  of  the  United  States 
have  been  unable  to  accede  tc  the  proposal  as  contained  in  either  of 
the  forms  of  notes  submitted  by  Her  Majesty's  Government ;  it  is  on 
that  account  regretted  that  thej  have  not  yet  seen  that  they  could  con- 
sent to  propose  a  form  for  a  new  Article  to  the  Treaty,  which,  while  it 
would  remove  the  whole  difticulty,  would  at  the  same  time  have  tlio 
concurrence,  if  it  were  agree<l  to,  of  the  Senate  as  well  as  of  the  Presi 
dent,  constituting  the  whole  Treaty  power  of  the  United  States. 

The  President,  he  added,  had  instructed  him  to  say  that  he  cannot 
withdraw  himself  any  part  of  what  has  been  submitted  within  his  con- 
ception of  the  intent  and  spirit  of  the  Treaty.  This  he  cannot  do  from 
his  constitutional  inability  to  recede  from  what  the  Government  of  tlie 
United  Statesisof  opinion  has  been  submitted  witliin  the  intentandmean- 
ing  of  that  instrument.  If  the  British  Government  should  make  a  dc 
mand  that  it  should  be  so  withdrawn,  the  responsibility  the  President 
feels  of  any  failure  of  the  Treaty,  which  he  wishes  to  preserve  and 
maintain,  would  be  upon  them.  The  President  hopes,  however,  that  as 
the  two  Governments  have  not  been  able  to  come  to  an  agreement  on 
account  of  these  difficulties,  asto  notes  being  interchanged  for  the  ac- 
complishment of  this  purpose,  the  British  Government  may  yet  see  their 
way  to  maintain  the  Treaty  in  the  8Ugges|;ion  of  a  new  Article,  as 
mentioned  or  suggested  in  the  telegram  of  yesterday.  If  they  adopt 
that  suggestion,  he  was  directed  to  say  that  Congress  will  adjourn 
about  the  latter  part  of  this  month,  and  that  time  may  be  saved,  there 
fore,  if  negotiations  on  this  point  should  be  conducted  at  Washington 
rather  than  in  London.  If  Her  JNIaJesty's  Government  desire  such  ne 
gotiation  at  Washington,  it  might  be  advisable,  in  order  to  save  time, 
to  furnish  you  with  instructions. 

I  expressed  my  fears  that  this  telegraphic  message  did  not  give  any 
hope  of  a  settlement.  Her  Majesty's  Government  saw  great  objections 
to  a  new  Article.  The  words  used  by  Her  Majesty's  Government,  "  in 
similar  cases  and  similar  circumstances,"  had  appeared  to  the  United 
States  Government  as  too  narrow.  The  words  General  Schenck  pro 
posed,  as  suggested  in  the  telegram  from  Mr.  ]<^ish,  made  the  Rule  too 
broad.  There  was  great  disadvantage  in  laying  down  a  rule  of  vast  im- 
port, of  which  neither  Government  could  without  the  greatest  consid- 
eration foresee  all  the  possible  applications.  W^as  General  Schenck 
sure  that  such  a  rule  would  not  exclude  many  of  the  claims  called  di 
rect  put  into  the  American  Case  f 

General  Schenck  spoke  of  the  importance  of  a  new  Article  in  order 
to  correct  the  Treaty. 
I  observed  that  such  an  argument  would  be  an  additional  reason  lor 


corresponi)p:nce  respecting  geneva  arbitration.    499 


us  to  object  to  it,  as  we  should  thereby  imply  that  we  thought  the 
Treaty  required  amendineot. 

General  Schenck  explained,  that  what  he  meant  was  that  if  such  a 
rule  had  been  inserted  in  the  Treaty  originally,  then  there  would  have 
been  no  such  difficulty  as  has  now  arisen,  and  so  if  an  amendment  were 
made  now,  providing  for  such  a  rule,  and  relating  back  to  the  Treaty  so 
us  to  become  a  part  of  it,  all  the  difficulty  that  has  grown  up  would  fall 
to  the  ground.  He  also  said,  as  to  the  proposal  to  modify  our  note  so 
;isto  substitute  for  the  words  "  not  to  have  regard,"  &c.,  the  words  "  will 
not  bring  the  indirect  claims  before  the  Tribunal,"  that  such  a  modiflcatioti 
would  only  make  the  language  more  objectionable  ;  for  that  what  his 
liovernment  claims  is  that  these  claims  are  now  rightfully  under  the 
Treaty  before  the  Tribunal,  and  the  question  is  not  whether  the  United 
States  shall  bring  them  there,  but  whether  anything  can  be  devised 
which  may  remove  them  from  the  consideration  of  the  Arbitrators. 

1  said  1  understood  that  the  President  considered  the  Treaty  included 
the  indirect  claims,  but  that  he  had  only  exercised  an  administrative  act 
in  directing  that  these  claims  should  be  put  for\rard  in  the  Case  ;  that 
it  would  be  simply  another  administrative  act  to  direct  that  the  Agent 
should  not  press  for  a  pecuniary  award,  but  that  to  adopt  our  words 
•  not  to  have  regard,"  &c.,  would  go  beyond  his  constitutional  powers. 

If,  however,  tlic  Senate  was  willing  to  consent  to  give  powers  to  the 
President,  which  he  deemed  that  he  (IW  not  now  i>ossess,  by  the 
adoption  of  a  new  Article,  what  was  his  objection  to  obtaining  their 
consent  to  annnterchange  of  notes  I 

I  was  sure  Her  Majcsiy's  Government  would  feel  great  objection  to 
I  interrupting  the  course  of  negotiation  by  abruptly  transferring  it  to 
I  Washington. 

I  concluded  by  saying  that  I  carefully  avoided  anything  that  might 
I  he  construed  into  menace,  bul,  in  conse«}uence  of  the  views  and  infor- 
mation he  had  presented  to  me  yesterday  and  to-day,  1  took  an  unfa- 
vourable view  of  the  chances  of  settlement. 


I  am,  &c. 


GRANVILLE. 


No.  43. 


General  Sehenek  to  Mr.  Fish. 


cle  in  order 
il  reason  lor 


[Telegram.] 

London,  May  10,  ISTl*. 

Lord  Granville  has  this  moment  sent  a  message  requesting  me  to 
I  telegraph  you  immediately  that  a  (Cabinet  will  be  held  this  morning,  aud 

that  he  wishes  me  to  meet  him  afterwards.  This  looks  like  reconsidera- 
Itionof  what  he  said  yesterday.  I  hjive  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
I  they  have  two  reasons  for  their  conduct:  One,  an  unwillingness  on  the 

part  of  Mr.  Gladstone  to  seem  to  retract  the  extreme  position  he  took 
lilt  the  beginning  as  to  the  ii»terpretation  of  the  Treaty;  the  other,  an 

actual  unwillingness  to  adopt  any  rule  to  limit  claims  against  neutrals 
I  ill  the  future,  their  only  object  being  to  get  rid  of  a  portion  of  the 
I  ilemunds  of  tlie  United  States. 

SCHP^NCK. 


^\i 


i'^^'? 


500  TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 

Jfo.  44. 

General  Schench  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[Telegram.] 

London,  May  10, 1S72. 
Lord  Granville  a  few  minutes  since  brought  to  me  in  person  the 
following  draught  of  an  article  which,  if  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  think  fit  to  adopt,  will  be  accepted  by  Iler  Majesty's  Government. 
1  made  no  comment  on  it,  but  said  I  would  telegraph  it  to  you  immedi- 
ately : 

Whereas  the  Governnieut  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty  has  contended  in  the  recent 
correspondence  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  as  follows,  namely :  That 
such  indirect  claims  as  those  for  the  national  losses  stated  in  the  Case  presenteil,  on 
the  part  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration,  at 
Geneva,  to  have  been  sustaiued  in  the  loss  in  the  transfer  of  the  American  commercial 
marine  to  the  British  flag ;  the  enhanced  payments  of  insurance ;  the  prolongation  of 
the  war,  and  the  addition  of  a  large  sum  to  the  cost  of  the  war  and  the  suppression  ot' 
the  rebellion — firstly,  were  not  included  in  fact  in  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  and  fur- 
ther, and  secondly,  should  not  be  admitted  iu  principle  as  growing  out  of  the  acts  com- 
mitted by  particular  vessels,  alleged  to  have  been  enabled  to  commit  depredations 
upon  the  shipping  of  a  belligerent,  by  reason  of  such  a  Mant  of  due  diligence  in  tbo 
performance  of  neutral  obligations  as  that  which  is  imputed  by  the  United  States  to 
Great  Britain ;  and 

Whereas  the  Government  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty  has  also  declared  that  the  prin- 
ciple involved  in  the  second  of  the  contentions,  hereinbefore  set  forth,  will  guide  their 
conduct  in  future ;  and 

Whereas  the  President  of  the  United  States,  while  adhering  to  his  cjntention  that 
the  said  claims  were  included  in  the  Treaty,  adopts  for  the  future  the  principle  con- 
tained in  the  second  of  the  said  contentious,  so  uir  as  to  declare  that  it  will  hereaftei 
guide  the  conduct  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  and  the  two  countries  are 
therefore  agreed  in  this  respect : 

»^  In  consideration  thereof  the  President  of  the  United  States,  by  and  with  the  advico 
and  consent  of  the  Senate  thereof,  consents  that  he  will  make  no  claim  on  the  part  of 
the  United  States,  in  respect  of  indirect  losses  as  aforesaid,  before  the  Tribunal  of  Arbi- 
tration, at  Geneva. 

SCHENCK. 


[From  British  Blue  Book  "North  America,"  No.  9,  (1872,;  p.  12.1 

No.  45. 
£arl  Granville  to  Sir  E.  Thornton. 

FoEEiGN  Office,  May  10, 1872. 

Sir  :  General  Schenck,  at  an  interview  with  me  this  day,  read  to  me 
a  statement,  which  he  subsequently  gave  to  me,  and  of  which  I  inclose 
a  copy,  summing  up  what  he  regarded  as  the  present  position  of  the 
question  between  the  two  Governments  of  the  claims  for  indirect  losses. 

1  said,  in  reply,  that  I  received  this  paper  as  another  proof  of  tbe 
desire  which  General  Schenck  had  so  persistently  shown,  while  stronglj' 
supporting  the  views  of  his  Government,  to  maintain  the  Treaty  of 
Washington.  There  were  some  passages  in  it  upon  which  I  might  make 
observations,  but  I  thought  the  letter,  which  I  was  about  to  send  to  him, 
would  prove  to  be  the  most  practical  and  satisfactory  answer.    He  would 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION.      501 

not  fail  to  remark  tbe  labors  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  had 
bestowed  on  an  attempt  to  remove  the  obstacles  to  a  satisfactory  settle- 
ment of  the  misunderstanding  which  had  arisen. 


am,  &c., 


GRANVILLE. 


[For  inclosure  in  No;  45,  see  p.  51(5.] 


No.  4G. 

General  Sclienck  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[Extract.] 

No.  224.]  Legation  op  the  United  States, 

London.  May  11, 1872.    (R*»ceived  May  27.) 

Sir  :  'When  I  received  last  evening  from  Lord  Granville  the  draught 
of  the  new  Article  which  is  proposed  by  Her  Majesty's  Government  as  a 
supplement  to  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  I  hastened  to  communicate  it 
to  you  by  telegraph.  This,  with  the  labor  of  carefully  preparing  it  to  be 
transmitted  in  cipher,  made  it  impossible  to  furnish  in  time  for  the  mail 
of  to-day,  copies  of  the  papers,  less  important  in  their  character,  which 
accompanied  that  draught.  These  accompanying  papers  consist  of  two 
notes  with  their  respective  inclosures,  of  all  of  which  I  send  copies 
now. 

The  first  is  a  note  of  the  10th  instant,  addressed  to  me  by  Lord  Gran- 
ville, recapitulating  in  a  general  and  compendious  way  what  had  re- 
cently passed  between  us,  and  concluding  with  the  information  that 
although  they  think  it  belongs  to  the  Government  of  the  United  'States 
to  frame  the  suggested  Article,  yet,  in  order  to  meet  our  wishes  d  to 
save  any  inconvenient  delay,  they  would  transmit  a  draught  of  an  Ai  t  le. 
which  if  the  Government  of  the  United  States  thinks  fit  to  adopt  will  b«' 
accepted  by  Her  Majesty's  Government.  Accompanying  this  note  and 
appended  to  it  are  a  copy  of  the  draught  or  memorandum,  in  relation  to  a 
proposed  exchange  of  notes  on  the  subject,  which  was  communicated  to 
me  on  the  6th  instant,  and  a  copy  of  a  memorandum  which  he  made  of 
one  of  our  several  interviews,  being  that  of  the  8th  instant,  when  I  com- 
municated to  him  the  substance  of  your  telegram  of  the  7th,  and  in- 
formed him  that  the  President  would  be  willing  to  consider,  and  if  pos- 
sible would  present  to  the  Senate,  any  new  Article  which  might  be  pro- 
posed by  the  British  Government. 

The  second  is  the  brief  note  from  Lord  Granville,  also  of  the  10th 
instant,  with  which  he  transmitted  the  draught  of  the  Article  referred 
to  in  his  first. 

But  the  draught  which  he  inclosed  was  not  in  fact  and  precisely,  in 
terms,  the  one  which  I  have  telegraphed  to  you.  After  it  had  been 
copied  and  prepared  to  be  sent  in  cipher,  Lord  Teuterden  came  in  haste 
to  the  Legation  from  Lord  Granville  to  recall  it,  and  substituted  the 
amended  form  which  I  forwarded  to  yon.    I  preserve  and  send  you  a 


502 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


copy  of  the  draught  which  was  withdrawn,  as  well  as  of  the  one  whicli 
was  finallj'  submitted,  simply  iis  marking  a  step  in  the  progress  of  tlie 
negotiation. 

As  these  two  notes,  with  their  inclosures,  were  of  the  same  date,  and 
delivered  at  the  same  time,  I  acknowledged  the  receipt  of  the  whole 
together,  stating  that  I  would  immediately  transmit  the  Article  to  you 
by  telegraph,  and  that  I  did  not  doubt  it  would  be  considered  at  oiiee 
by  my  Government,  and  the  result  of  that  consideration  communicated 
to  me  through  the  same  medium,  and  with  as  little  delay  as  possible 
and  in  the  same  friendly  spirit  in  which  the  proposal  of  Her  Majesty's 
(lovernment  had  been  ottered.  A  copy  of  my  note  of  acknowledg- 
ment is  inclosed  herewith. 

This  evening  I  have  received  from  Lord  CJranville  a  note,  for  the  first 
time  formally  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  your  dispatch  to  me  of  tlic 
16th  of  April,  a  copy  of  which  I  had  communicated  to  hi  j  on  the  1st 
instant.  This  note,  although  dated  on  the  0th,  has  obviously  just  been 
written,  and  is  now  delivered  to  me  antedated  in  order  to  keep  up  tlic 
chronological  sequence  and  logical  connection  of  the  correspondence.  1 
transmit  herewith  a  copy  of  it. 

#  *  *  m  «  «  * 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

liOBT.  C.  SCIIENCK. 


llnclosure  1  in  Nc,  4R.] 
-Earl  Granville  to  Oineral  Schcucl: 

roKKir.N  Oi'FiCK,  Mag  M,  18'± 

SiK  :  In  replying  to  tli«  comniniiicatiou  ■nliicli  you  made  to  nie  on  ibe  8tli 
instant,  I  think  it  well  to  recapitulate  the  recent  connnunieatiou  which  I  have  hud 
with  you  on  the  subject  of  the  arbitration  on  the  Alabama  claims. 

On  the  29th  of  April  you  made  an  informal  communication  to  me  which  you  sub.-<e- 
quently  rendered  otticial,  informing  me  that  a  proposal  made  by  this  country  on  a  cer- 
tain basis  would  be  acceptable.  Her  Majesty's  Government  thereupon  decided  to  .as- 
sume the  initiative,  and  they  framed  upon  th.at  basis,  as  they  understood  it,  the  ac- 
companying draught  with  a  viesv  to  .,.?  exchange  of  notes. 

This  draught,  which  had  b«'en  subjected  to  various  alterations  to  bring  it  more 
closely  in  conformity  with  the  views  which  you  had  expressed,  and  to  make  it,  as 
they  believed,  more  acceptable  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  was  delivered 
to  you  on  the  6th  instant. 

On  the  8th  instant  you  communicated  to  me  a  telegraphic  message,  apparently  in 
rejtly  to  this  draught,  from  your  Government,  of  which  i  made  the  accompanying 
memorandum. 

Her  Majesty 'sGovemment  are  by  this  telegram  invited  to  propose  an  Article'in  addi- 
tion to  or  in  amendment  of  the  Treaty  of  the  8th  of  May,  lf*7l. 

The  Treaty  is,  in  the  judgment  of  Her  Majesty's  Government,  clear  and  sufificient,  ami 
excludes  from  the  arbitration  the  claims  for  indirect  losses  advanced  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States.  It  is  therefore  ditttcult  for  Her  Majesty's  Government  to 
take  the  initiative  in  the  manner  the  United  States  have  proposed. 

They  think  that  it  belongs  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  to  whose  friendly 
suggestions  the  communications  which  have  taken  place  since  the  date  of  Mr.  FisliH 
reply  to  my  Jetter  of  the  20th  of  March  have  been  due,  to  frame  the  suggested  Article ; 
yet,  in  order  to  meet  their  wishes  and  to  save  any  inconvenient  delay,  1  will  transmit 
to  you  a  draught  of  an  Article  which,  if  the  Government  of  the  United  States  think  fit 
to  adopt,  will  be  accepted  by  Her  Majesty's  Government. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient,  hum- 
ble servant, 

GRANVILLE. 


m 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION.      503 

[Iiiclosure  2  iu  Xo.  46.1 
Memorandum. 

The  Uiiited  States  Goveninieut  claim,  and  insist  upon  their  claim,  that,  under  the 
Treaty,  chiimstor  the  indirect  losses  which  have  been  put  forward  are  admissible  to  ))e 
considered  by  the  Arbitrators,  although  they  do  not  expect,  and  never  have  expected, 
ii  pecuniary  award  ofdama^res  for  such  claims.  Great  Britain  denies  that  such  claims 
tome  within  the  scope  or  province  of  the  Arbitrators  to  consider  or  decide  upon. 

The  argumeuiative  discussion  has  ended,  leaving  each  party  adhering  to  their  posi- 
tion. 

The  United  States  Government,  in  this  condition  of  things,  have  been  willing  to 
accept  a  ])roposal  from  Great  Britain  that  in  consideration  of  not  pressing  for  a  pecu- 
niary award  on  those  indirect  claims,  Great  Britain  would  on  her  part  agree  to  en- 
gage uot  to  advance  in  the  future  in  any  case,  when  she  should  be  a  belligerent  and 
the  United  States  a  neutral,  such  claims  for  indirect  damages  as  are  put  forward  by 
tlio  United  States  Government  in  the  r'">><o  presented  on  their  behalf  to  the  Tribu- 
nal of  Arbitration  at  Giiieva,  and  to  make  that  reciprocally  the  rule  for  the  future. 
Great  Britain  is  understood  to  object  to  this  on  the  ground  that  an  agreement  not  to 
press  for  compensation  for  those  indirect  claims  is  not  sufficient,  because  the  Arbitra  ■ 
tors  in  that  case  might,  tliemselves,  proceed  to  take  them  into  consideration  and  make 
them  the  subject  of  an  award.  And,  therefore.  Great  Britain  has  only  been  willing  to 
establish  the  rule  in  regard  to  indirect  damages  on  condition  that  the  American  part  of 
the  Case  at  (Jeneva  which  puts  forward  these  particular  claims  should  bo  entirely 
withdrawn  from  the  consideration  of  the  Arbitrators.  The  President  holds  that  ho 
Las  power  to  give  instructions  iu  regard  to  the  management  of  the  Case  before  the 
Arbitrators,  and  therefore  could  direct  that  these  claims  should  not  be  pressed  for  an 
.iv>'a''-i.  But  inasmuch  as  the  Government  of  the  United  States  hold  that  the  claims 
are  adu..^dible  to  be  considered  by  the  Arbitrators  under  the  Treaty,  he  cannot  with- 
draw the  claims  as  not  being  rightfully  put  forward  without  its  being  such  an  altera- 
tion of  the  terms  and  principles  of  the  Treaty  as  is  inconsistent  with  bis  understand- 
ing of  it,  and  the  interpretation  which  has  been  put  npou  it  by  his  Government. 

The  Treaty  itself,  however,  may  be  amended  in  such  a  manner  as  to  accomplish  the 
object  and  remove  all  diifereuces  between  the  two  Governments  arising  out  of  their 
(liiferent  interpretations  of  its  provisions. 

General  Schenck  is  therefore  s  .uthorized  to  state  that  the  President  will  bo  willing 
to  consider,  and,  if  possible,  will  present  for  the  consideration  of  the  Senate,  any  new 
article  for  the  Treaty  which  may  be  proposed  by  the  British  Government,  which,  while 
it  settles  the  piiuciple  involved  iu  the  presentation  of  what  are  called  the  indirect 
claims,  will  remove  the  differences  which  have  arisen  between  the  two  Governments 
in  the  consideration  of  the  Treaty. 

The  President  is  earnestly  desirous  to  do  everything  consistent  with  his  duty  and 
with  the  great  interest  for  the  future  of  both  countries,  and  to  preserve  principles,  so 
important  to  civilization  as  he  thinks  are  involved  in  the  Treaty,  of  which  he  is  anx- 
ious to  preveu*^  the  failure,  and  to  this  end  he  is  willing  to  exhaust  all  proper  efforts  as 
far  as  can  be  done  without  abandoning  any  principle  and  consistently  with  the  honor 
and  dignity  of  both  Governments. 


ticle'in  addi- 


[luclosurc  .')  in  Xo.  4ti.  | 
Earl  Granville  to  General  Schenck. 


FoKKiON  Ofi'ick,  May  10,  1872. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  to  you  herewith  the  draught'  of  an  Article  referred 
to  in  my  preceding  note  of  this  day's  date. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient,  hum- 
ble servant, 

GRANVILLE. 


"t. 


I  ;>  i 


.504 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON. 


[Incloaure  4  ia  No.  46.  i 

*        General  Schenck  to  Earl  Granville. 

Lkoation  of  TiiK  United  Statks, 

London,  May  10,  ld7"2. 

My  Loud  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt,  at  4  o'clock  p.  m.  to-day,  of 
your  note  of  this  date,  in  which  you  take  occasion  to  recapitulate  some  recent  com- 
iiiunicationa  we  have  had  with  each  other  on  the  subject  of  the  Arbitration  ou  the 
Alabama  claims,  and  to  state  briefly,  according  to  your  understanding  and  note  of  tho 
transactions,  what  occurred  subsequently  iu  consequence  of  those  communicatiuiiH. 
You  refer  to  and  furnish  me  at  the  same  time  with  copies  of  a  draught  of  a  proposed 
note  delivered  to  me  on  the  6th  instant,  and  your  memorandum  of  a  conversation  I 
had  with  you  afterward,  at  an  interview  ou  the  8th  instant,  in  which  it  was  suggested 
to  you  to  propose  an  Article  in  addition  to,  or  in  amendment  of,  the  Treaty  of  the  8th 
of  May,  1871. 

This  suggestion  of  a  Treaty  stipulation,  you  will  remember,  was  made  in  conseqiieiico 
of  the  failure  to  obtain  from  you  any  drancrht  of  a  note  which,  iu  the  opinion  of  tho 
Government  of  the  United  States,  was  1:.;  conformity  with  the  proposal  which  Mr. 
Fish  telegraphed  to  me  on  the  27th  of  April.,  is  I  informed  you  he  was  led  to  expect 
would  be  made. 

Your  Lordship  proceeds  to  say  that  the  Treaty  is,  in  the  judgment  of  Her  Majesty's 
Government,  clear  and  sufficient,  and  excludes  from  the  Arbitration  the  claims  for 
indirect  losses  advanced  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  and  that  it  is  there- 
fore difficult  for  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  take  the  initiative  in  the  manner  the 
United  States  have  projposed ;  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  think  it  belongs  to  tlie 
Government  of  the  United  States,  to  whoso  friendly  suggestion  the  communicatious 
•which  have  taken  place  since  the  date  of  Mr.  Fish's  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  20th  of 
March  have  been  due,  to  frame  the  suggested  article ;  but  yet,  in  order  to  meet  their 
wishes  and  to  save  any  inconvenient  delay,  you  will  transmit  to  me  a  draught  of  an 
Article,  -which,  if  the  Government  of  the  United  States  think  fit  to  adopt,  will  be 
accepted  by  Her  Majesty's  Government. 

And  I  have  also  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  another  note  of  this  date  from  yoiu- 
Lordship,  which  was  delivered  to  me  at  the  same  time,  inclosing  the  draught  of  an 
Article  in  the  preceding  one  referred  to. 

I  will  hasten  to  communicate  immediately  by  telegraph  this  draught  to  my  Govern- 
ment; and  I  doubt  not  it  will  be  considered  at  once,  and  the  result  of  that  considera- 
tion communicated  to  me  through  tlie  same  medium,  and  with  as  little  delay  as 
])ossible,  and  in  the  same  friendly  spirit  iu  which  your  proposal  is  offered. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  my  Lord,  your  Lordship's 
most  obedient  servant, 

ROBT.  C.  SCHENCK. 


[Incloaure  5  in  Xo.  46.] 
Earl  Granville  to  General  Schenck. 

Foreign  Office,  May  6,  1872. 

Sir  n  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  Mr.  Fish's  dispatch  of  the  16th 
April,  which  you  communicated  to  aie  on  the  1st  instant.  I  abstain  from  addressing 
any  observations  to  you  on  the  tenor  of  that  dispatch  pending  the  result  of  the  com- 
munications which  are  now  passing  between  us,  aud  which  it  is  the  earnest  hope  of 
Her  Majesty's  Government  may  lead  to  a  satisfactory  settlement  of  the  questions  under 
discussion  between  our  two  Governments. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient, 
humble  servant, 

GRANVILLE. 


No.  47. 

The  following  dispatch  was  published  in  the  supplement  to  the  Lon- 
don Gazette,  May  17,  and  communicated,  in  accordance  with  instructions 
from  his  Government,  by  Sir  Edward  Thornton,  in  a  note  dated  May  31, 
1872.    (Received  June  1.) 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION.     505 


W 


(TATK8, 

tiy  10,  li:!7„>. 

m.  to-day,  of 
I  recent  coni- 
ation  ou  tlio 
d  note  of  the 
municatiunH. 
if  a  proposed 
)nver8atioa  1 
ias  suggested 
ity  of  the  8th 

consequence 
pinion  of  the 
il  which  Mr. 
led  to  expect 

FTer  Majesty's 
tie  claims  for 
it  it  is  there- 
I  manner  the 
lelongs  to  the 
uinuuicatioiis 
)f  the  20th  of 
to  meet  their 
Iraught  of  an 
dopt,  will  be 


Earl  Granville  to  Sir  E.  Thornton.^ 

Foreign  Okkick,  May  13,  1872. 

Sir  :  Her  Majesty's  Government  have  I'efraiued  from  continuing  an  argnmentative 
discussion  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  upon  the  scope  and  intention  of 
the  Articles  in  the  Treaty  of  Washington  relating  to  the  Arbitration  on  the  "Alabama 
claims." 

There  are,  however,  some  passage'  in  Mr.  Fish's  dispatch  on  this  subject  of  the  16th 
ultimo,  upon  which  it  seems  desira'ile  that,  for  your  own  information,  and  for  use  in 
any  future  communications  with  tae  Government  of  the  United  States,  you  should  be 
put  in  possession  of  the  views  of  Her  Majesty's  Government. 

In  the  first  place,  Mr.  Fish  takes  exception  to  the  assertion  in  my  letter  of  the  20th 
of  March,  that  although  it  is  true  that,  in  some  of  the  earlier  letters  of  Mr.  Adamis, 
vague  suggestions  were  made  as  to  possible  liabilities  of  this  country,  extending  be- 
yond the  direct  claims  of  American  citizens  for  specitic  losses  arising  from  the  capture 
of  their  vessels  by  the  "Alabama,"  "Florida,"  "Shenandoah,"  and  "Georgia,"  no 
claims  were  ever  defined  or  formulated,  and  certainly  none  were  ever  described  by  the 
phrase  "Alabama  claims,"  except  these  direct  claims  of  American  citizens. 

Mr.  Fish  states  that  I  cannot  be  disposed  to  intend  more  than  to  say  that  the  claims 
for  indirect  or  national  losses  and  iniuries  'vere  not  "formulated  "  by  the  United  States 
(jovernment,  and  the  amount  thereof  set  forth  in  detail  and  as  a  specific  demand. 

I  did  not,  however,  confine  myself  to  saying  that  no  claims  of  tlii?  nature  were  ever 
ilefined  or  formulated,  but  added  that  uo  such  claims  have  ever  been  '  described  "  as 
''Alabama  claims." 

Mr.  Fish  admits  that  the  claims  for  indirect  or  national  losses  were  not  formulated 
or  defined,  but  proceeds  to  cite  various  passages  in  the  correspondence  in  which  hu 
considers  that  they  were  brought  forward.  Hedoes  not  mention  one  instance  in  which 
they  were  described  as  "Alabama  claims." 

The  fact  is  that,  throughout  the  correspondence,  the  representations  made  by  the 
United  States  Government  respecting  the  actual  claims  for  injuries  sustained  by 
American  citizens  from  the  depredations  of  khe  "Alabama"  and  other  cruiseia  wore 
interspersed  with  complaints  of  the  supposed  premature  recognition  of  the  belligereni 
rights  of  the  Confederate  States  by  the  issue  of  Her  Majesty's  Proclamation  of  Neu- 
trality, and  of  the  proceedings  of  blockade-runners. 

Nearly  all  the  passages  cited  by  Mr.  Fish  will  be  found,  when  read  with  their  con- 
text, to  have  reference  to  these  complaints,  and  to  the  indefinite  suggestions  of  lia- 
bility founded  on  them.  On  the  other  hand,  on  turning  to  the  Memorandum,  inclosed 
in  my  letter  of  the  20th  of  March,  it  is  apparent  that  the  jihrase  "Alabama  claims'' 
has  uniformly  been  used  to  distinguish  the  actual  claims  on  account  of  the  acts  com- 
mitted by  the  "Alabama  "  and  the  other  cruisers  from  t!iese  complaints  of  the  "  atti- 
tude "  assumed  by  Great  Britain. 

Mr.  Fish  lays  great  stress  on  the  statement  in  Mr.  Adams's  letter  of  the  20th  Novem- 
ber, 1862,  that  he  was  instructed  to  "  solicit  redress  for  the  national  and  private  injuries 
already  thus  sustained."  The  injuries  thus  sustained  were,  as  appears  by  the  inclosures 
in  Mr.  Adams's  letter,  the  destruction  of  the  "  Ocmulgee,"  and  othci"  vessels  by  the  "Al- 
abama." As  already  pointed  out  in  the  Memorandum,  Mr.  Adams  spoke  merely  of  the 
"  depredations  committed  on  the  high  seas  upon  merchant-vessels  "  by  the  "Alabama," 
and  of  "  the  right  of  reclamatiom  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  for  the 
grievous  damage  done  to  the  property  of  their  citizens,"  and  referred  to  the  Claims 
Commission  under  the  Treaty  of  1794  as  a  precedent  forawarding  compensate',  a.  There 
is  not  a  word  in  the  letter  to  suggest  any  indirect  or  constructive  claims. 

In  the  dispatch  of  the  19th  of  February,  1863,  Mr.  Seward,  in  a  similar  manner,  uses 
the  term  "  its  claims  "  with  obvious  reference  to  the  claims  put  forward  by  the  United 
States  on  behalf  of  American  citizens;  those,  indeed,  being  the  only  claims  that  had 
been  indicated  in  the  correspondence  between  Mr.  Adams  and  Lord  Russell  to  which  he 
was  alluding. 

I  must  remark  that  this  dispatch  of  the  19th  of  February,  1869,  was  not  communi- 
cated to  the  British  Government. 

Mr.  Fish  has  omitted  some  important  words  in  the  next  passage  which  he  adduces- 
from  Lord  Russell's  dispatch  to  Lord  Lyons  on  the  27th  of  March,  1863. 

The  dispatch  gives  an  account  of  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Adams,  at  the  close  «if 
which  Lord  Russell  said  that  it  was  his  belief  "  that  if  all  the  assistance  given  to  thi) 
Federals  by  British  subjects  and  British  munitions  of  war  were  weighed  against  simi- 


iven   to  the  Confederates,  the  balance  would  be  greatly  in  favor  of  the 


lar  aid 
Federals? 

Mr.  Adams  totally  denied  this  proposition.  "  Bat  above  all,"  ho  said,  "  there  is  a  man- 
ifest conspiracy  in  this  country,  of  which  the  Confederate  Loan  is  an  additional  proof,, 
to  produce  a  state  of  exasperation  iu  America,  and  thus  bring  on  a  war  with  Great 


506 


TREATY   OF    WASHINGTON. 


Britain,  with  a  view  to  aid  the  Confederato  cau8»s  and  secure  a  iiioiunioly  of  the  tradt; 
of  tlie  Southern  States,  whose  independence  these  conspirators  hope  to  establisli  by 
these  illejiral  and  unjust  nieasunts." 

Mr.  Fisii  omits  the  words  "of  Avhich  the  Confederate  Loan  is  an  additional  proof.' 
which,  taken  with  the  context,  show  that  Mr.  Adams  was  then  speakinjj,  not  of  tiic 
case  of  the  "Alabama,"  but  of  the  assistance  in  money  and  materials  which  Iumoii- 
sidercd  was  improperly  rendered  to  the  Confederate  States  by  blockade-ruuuiny  and 
the  Cotton  Loan. 

Mr.  Adams's  letters  of  the  7th  of  April  and  20tli  of  May,  and  Lord  Russell's  letter  of 
the  4th  of  May,  18G5,  are  commented  on  in  the  Memorandum,  Part  II,  and  it  is  unnec- 
essary for  me  to  make  any  further  observations  on  them,  as  Mr.  Fish  does  not  reply 
to  those  which  I  have  already  offered.  Whatever  nuij' have  been  the  purpose  to  iv- 
quire  indenniitication,  no  claim  was  present»;d  or  notified,  and  the  grievances  of  whii  li 
comitlaint  was  uuule  were  in  no  way  identified  with  the  "  Alabama  claims." 

The  dispatch  of  the  14th  of  February,  18(16,  was  not  communicated  to  Her  Majesty's 
Goverumeut ;  but,  on  referrin;;  to  the  :5d  volume  of  the  Appendix  to  the  American 
Case,  p.  G28,  in  which  it  is  k'^'*'";  >*  ap])ears  to  refer  to  the  possibility  of  fresh  ncftrolju- 
tions  in  rej^ard  to  a  revision  of  the  Neutrality  Laws  and  to  Lord  Russell's  refusal  of 
arbitratit>n.  Both  these  subjects  are  referred  to  at  pa<j;e  fW.'),  and  the  dispatch  accord- 
iuf^ly  concludes,  after  the  paraj^raph  quoted  by  Mr.  Fish,  by  saying,  "  I  think  that  the 
c(juntry  would  be  unanimous  in  declinin;;  every  form  of  negotiation  that  should  have 
in  view  merely  prospective  regulations  of  national  intercourse,  so  long  as  the  justice 
of  our  existing  claims  for  indemnity  is  denied  by  Her  Majesty's  Government,  and  those 
claims  are  refused  to  be  made  subject  of  friendly  but  impartial  examination." 

There  can  be  no  pretense  that  the  claims  which  Lord  Russell  refused  to  submit  to 
arbitration  extended  to  indirect  claims.  The  proposal  arose  in  connection  with  "ii 
claim  for  the  destruction  of  the  ship  '  Nora '  and  other  claims  of  the  same  kind,"  (see  Mr. 
Adams's  letter  of  the  23d  of  October,  1863,)  and  Lord  Russell,  in  reply  to  it,  stated 
that  Her  Majesty's  Government  must  decline  "either  to  make  reparation  smd  com- 
pensation/or  the  captures  made  by  the  '^llabama,^  or  to  refer  the  question  to  any  foreign 
State." 

I  have  already  pointed  out  that  no  importance  can  be  attached  to  the  claims  of 
private  citizens  being  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Seward  as  "our  claims."  The  "claims  of 
citizens  of  the  United  States  against  Great  Britain  for  damages,  &c.,  by  means  of  depre- 
dations upon  our  commercial  marine  committed  on  the  high  seas  by  the  '  Sumter,'  the 
'Alabama,'  the  '  Florida,'  the  '  Shenandoah,' "&c.,  of  which  a  summary  was  annexed  to 
the  dispatch  from  Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams,  of  the  'i7th  of  August,  1866,  communi- 
cated to  Lord  Stanley,  and  which  are  undeniably  private  claims,  are  mentioned  in  that 
«lispatch  as  "  the  claims  upon  which  we  insist,"  and  "  our  claims." 

The  next  dispatch  referred  to,  that  from  Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams,  of  the  2d  of 
May,  was  likewise  not  communicated  to  Her  Majesty's  Government.  The  context 
clearly  shows  that  the  "  injuries"  from  "  the  first  unfriendly  or  wrongful  proceeding" 
referred  to  the  "  concession  of  belligerency."'  Mr.  Seward,  in  a  preceding  paragraph, 
says,  "  I  feel  quite  certain  that  the  balance  of  faults  has  been  on  the  sitle  of  Great 
Britain.  First,  the  concession  of  belligerency  ought  not  to  have  been  made  ;  second, 
upon  our  earnest  appeals  it  ought  to  have  been  earlier  rescinded."  The  dispatch  goes 
«n  to  state  the  conviction  of  the  American  people  that  the  "proceedings  of  the  British 
Government  in  recognizing  the  Confederacy  were  not  merely  unfriendly  and  ungenei- 
ous,  but  entirely  unjust." 

lu  another  part  of  Mr.  Fish's  dispatch  complaints  (not  clarms)  are  noticed  as  having 
been  made  by  Mr.  Adams  on  the  30th  of  December,  1862,  14th  and  27th  of  March,  1863, 
and  28th  of  April. 

The  "acts"  complained  of  in  the  first  extract  will  be  seen,  on  reading  the  entire 
passage,  to  have  been  that  "  vessels  owned  by  British  subjects  have  been  and  are  yet 
in  the  constant  practice  of  departing  from  British  ports  laden  with  contraband  of  war 
and  many  other  commodities,  with  the  intent  to  break  the  blockade  and  to  procrasti- 
nate the  war." 

The  dispatch  of  the  14th  of  March,  1863,  refers  to  certain  intercepted  correspondence 
relating  to  the  proceedings  and  supposed  intentions  of  Confederate  agents,  blockade- 
runners,  and  to  the  Cotton  Loan. 

The  complaint  on  the  27th  of  March,  as  I  have  already  explained,  also  referred  to  the 
Cotton  Loan  and  to  these  proceedings  of  Confederate  agents. 

The  dispatch  of  the  28th  of  April  begins,  '"I  am  instructed  to  inform  your  Lordship 
that  the  Goverumeut  of  the  United  States  has  beard  with  surprise  and  regret  of  the 
negotiation  of  a  loan  in  this  city,"  and  proceeds  to  state  that  "  this  transaction  must 
bring  to  an  end  all  concessions,  of  whatever  form,  that  may  have  been  heretofore  made 
for  mitigating  or  alleviating  the  rigors  of  the  blockade  in  regard  to  the  shipment  of 
cotton;"  and  concludes,  "  I  am  sure  that  it  is  with  the  greatest  reluctance  it"  [the 
United  States  Goverumeut]  "finds  itself  compelled,  by  the  oifensivo  acts  of  appar- 
ently irresponfiiblo  parties,  bent  upon  carrying  on  hostilities  under  the  shelter  of  neii. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARIJITRATION. 


)07 


of  the  trailf 
estiiblisli  by 

ioiial  proof." 
t,  not  of  tlic 
hieh  hi!  I'on- 
niimiiijr  iiml 

ill's  letter  of 
I  it  is  iiiiiuT- 
>es  not  reiily 
iirpose  to  rc- 
ces  of  wliiili 

[er  Majesty's 
lie  Anua'ieiiM 
resh  nc^jfol  in- 
n's refusal  of 
latch  aeeord- 
link  that  the 
should  liave 
,s  the  justiee 
lit,  and  those 
m." 

to  sulunit  to 
tioii  with  "a 
ud,"  (sec  Mr, 
1  to  it,  stated 
on  and  com- 
)  any  foreign 

he  claims  of 
e  "  claims  of 
ana  of  dopre- 
Sninter,'  the 
s  annexed  to 
I),  coinmuiii- 
ioned  in  that 

of  the  2d  of 
The  context 
proceedinp;" 
paragraph, 
ido  of  Great 
ide ;  second, 
si)atch  goes 
'  the  British 
uid  iiugener- 


ed  as  having 
March,  18G3, 

g  the  entire 
and  are  yet 
iband  of  war 
to  procra^ti- 

■respondence 
ts,  blockade- 

■ferred  to  the 

jur  Lordship 
egret  of  the 
saction  must 
etofore  made 
shipment  of 
nee  it"  [the 
its  of  appar- 
olter  of  ueii. 


trality,  to  restrict  rather  than  to  expand  the  avenues  of  legitimate  trade.  '  The  rf»j>on- 
sibilitiifoi'  thin '  [i.  <•.,  for  this  restriction]  'uiust  rest  mainly  upon  those  who,  for  motives 
best  known  to  themselves,  have  labored  and  continue  to  labor  so  strenuously  and  eti'ec- 
tually  to  furnish  the  means  for  tlie  protraction  of  the  struggle.'" 

I  have  reviewed  the  passages  cited  by  Mr.  Fish  in  support  of  his  argument,  that  the 
"Alabama  claims"  included  other  cluiiiis  than  those  for  the  actual  losses  of  American 
citizens,  in  order  to  show  bow  little  support  they  alford  to  it;  but  this  is  almost  siiper- 
lluous,  as  a  conclusive  answer  is  att'orded  by  tiie  very  volume  of  disiiatches  from  whicli 
Mr.  Fish  Las  taken  these  extracts. 

Mr.  Reverdy  Johnson,  in  a  dispatch  to  Mr.  Sewanl  dated  Fi>bruary  17,  1809,  (page 
7C7,)  ccuitaining  a  report  of  his  negotiations  with  Her  Majesty's  Government,  states  : 
.  "  I  hear  that  in  some  ([Uarters  objections  are  made  to  the  ClaimsL'onveiition,  for  whicii 
I  was  not  prepared. 

"  1.  It  is  said,  I  ain  told,tha^the  claims  to  be  submitted  should  not  be  nil  that  have 
arisen  subsecpient  to  .July,  18.'i:{. 

"  *-i.  That  no  ]>rovision  is  made  for  the  submission  of  any  losses  which  our  Govern- 
ment, as  such,  may  liave  sustained  by  the  recognition  of  the  insurgents  as  belligerents, 
and  the  depredations  upon  our  commerce  by  the  'Alabama'  ami  other  vessels.    *     *     * 

"As  regards  the  second  «)bJection,"  he  urges,  "  I  am  at  a  loss  to  imagine  wh.at  would 
be  the  measure  of  the  damage  which  it  supposes  our  Government  should  be  iudeiiuii- 
lied  for.  How  is  it  to  be  ascertained  ?  IJy  what  rule  is  it  to  be  measured  f  A  nation's 
honor  can  have  no  coinytensation  in  money, and  the  depredations  of  the  'Alabama'  were 
of  property  in  which  our  nation  ha<l  no  direct  pecuniary  interest.  If  it  be  said  that 
those  depredations  prevented  the  sending  forth  of  other  commercial  enterprises,  the 
answer  is  twofold :  first,  that  if  they  had  been  sent  forth,  the  nation  would  have  had 
no  direct  interest  in  them ;  and,  second,  that  it  could  not  be  known  that  any  such 
would  have  been  undertaken.  Upon  what  ground,  therefore,  could  the  nation  <lemand 
compeusatiou  in  money  on  either  account  f  And  if  it  was  received,  is  it  to  go  into  the 
Treasury  for  the  use  of  the  Government,  or  to  be  distributed  among  those  wiio  may 
have  engaged  in  such  enterprises,  and  how  many  of  them  are  there,  and  how  are  they 
to  be  ascertained  ?  France  recognized  the  insurgents  as  belligerents,  and  this  may 
have  tended  to  prolong  the  war.  This,  too,  it  may  be  said,  was  a  violation  of  her 
dut}',  and  affected  our  honor.  If  we  can  claim  indemnity  for  our  nation  for  such  a 
recognition  by  England,  we  can  equally  claim  it  of  France.  And  who  has  suggested 
such  a  claim  as  that  ? 

"  15ut  the  final  and  conclusive  answer  to  these  objections  is  this  : 

"1.  That  at  no  time  during  the  war,  whether  while  the 'Alabama'  and  her  sister 
ships  were  engaged  in  giving  our  marine  to  the  tlames,  or  since,  no  branch  of  the  Gov- 
ernment proposed  to  hold  Her  Majesty's  Government  responsible,  except  to  the  value 
of  the  property  destroyed,  and  that  which  would  have  resulted  from  the  completion  of 
the  voyages  in  which  they  were  engaged.  The  Government  never  exacted  anything 
on  its  own  account.  It  acted  only  as  the  guardian  and  protector  of  its  own  citizeiis, 
and  therefore  only  required  that  this  Government  should  pay  thei"  losses,  or  agree  to 
submit  the  question  of  its  liability  to  fr'endly  arbitrament.  To  demand  more  now, 
and  particularly  to  make  a  demand  to  which  no  limit  can  well  be  assigned,  would  be 
an  entire  departure  from  our  previous  course,  and  would,  I  am  sure,  not  bo  listened 
to  by  this  Government,  or  countenanced  by  other  nations.  We  have  obtained  by  the 
Convention  in  question  all  that  we  have  ever  asked ;  and  with  perfect  opportunity  of 
knowing  what  the  sentiment  of  this  Government  au<l  people  is,  I  am  satisiied  that 
nothing  more  can  be  accomplished.  And  I  am  equally  satisfied  that  if  the  Convention 
goes  into  operation,  every  dollar  due  on  what  are  known  aa  the  'Alabama  claims '  will 
be  recovered." 

If  Mr.  Jobnaou  was  mistaken  in  the  view  thus  decidedly  expressed,  it  might  be  ex- 
pected that  some  notice  would  have  been  taken  of  so  important  an  error.  But  Mr. 
iScward's  reply  of  March  3,  1869,  gives  no  intimation  of  any  dissent  whatever.  He 
V. .  ites,  "  Your  dispatch  No.  112  of  the  17tli  ultimo,  relative  to  the  Protocol  and  Con- 
vevt.ion  recently  signed  by  you  on  behalf  of  this  Government,  has  this  day  been 
rcctiived  and  submitted  to  the  President.  He  directs  me  to  to  say,  in  reply,  that  it  is 
regarded  as  an  able  and  elaborate  paper,  and  would  have  been  commanicated  to  the 
Senate  had  it  not  reached  here  at  the  close  of  the  i>resent  session,  and  that  of  his  Ad- 
ministration." 

Thus,  according  to  an  uncontradicted  statement  in  an  otficial  dispatch  from  the 
United  States  Minister  in  London  to  the  Government  at  Washington,  otticii^lly  published 
by  the  United  States  Government,  that  Government  had  never  exacted  anything  on  its 
own  account,"  and  the  claims,  ''  known  aa  the  'Alabama  claims^  "  had  been  limited  during 
the  whole  war,  and  in  the  subsequent  negotiations  up  to  February,  1869,  to  the  claims 
for  the  value  of  the  property  destroyed,  and  that  which  would  have  resulted  from  the 
completion  of  the  voyages  in  which  the  captured  vessels  were  engaged. 

Mr.  Johnson  confirmed  the  statement  in  his  dispatch,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  J.  A.  Parker, 
published  in  the  "New  York  Journal  of  Commerce,"  30th  November,  1870:  "My  iti- 


508 


TREATY   OP    WASIIINGTOV. 


Htrnctions,  as  did  thoite  uf  Mr.  AdaiiiH,  looked  excluaively  to  the  adjuHtinoiit  of  ituli- 
vidual  cluinifl,  and  no  alleged  couiiniHsion  or  oiniHsion  of  the  Britiali  Government  of 
Ler  duty  to  the  United  States  pentliug  the  war  was  given  in  any  part  of  the  corn;- 
Hpondeuco  between  tbc  two  (iovernnients  as  having  any  iutlucnce  upon  other  than  indi- 
vidual claims." 

It  is  not  easy  to  understand  how  a  class  of  claims  which  had  been  knovn  under  oni; 
appellation  for  seven  years  could  have  suddenly  acquired  a  far  wider  antl  more  oni',rf)ii,s 
signiticance. 

Mr.  Fisli  relies  on  Mr.  Reverdy  Johnson's  proposed  amendment  of  the  Clarendon- 
Johnson  Convention,  on  these  public  or  national  claims  having  been  prominently  be- 
fore the  Senate  whenjthat  Convention  was  under  ailvisement,  (by  which  it  is  to  be  pre- 
sumed he  refers  to  Mr.  Sumner's  speech,  the  only  .  ,'t  of  the  proceedings  which  wan 
published,)  on  the  President's  Message  of  December,  1869,  and  on  his  dispatch  to  .Mr. 
Motley  of  the  25th  of  September,  1861). 

Mr.  Johnson's  proposal,  however,  was  not  to  include  national  claims  umhir  tiie  head 
of  "Alabama  claims,"  but  to  superadd  them  by  inserting  certain  words  after  the  wonls 
"  agree  that,"  in  the  lirst  Article  of  the  Convention. 

Had  his  proposal  been  adopted,  the  Article  would  have  stood  thus :  "  The  High  Con- 
tracting Parties  agree  that" — here  comes  the  insertion — "  [all  claims  on  the  part  of  Her 
Majesty's  Government  upon  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  and  all  claims  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  upon  Her  Majesty's  Government,  and]  all  claims  on 
the  part  of  subjects  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty  upon  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  and  all  claims  on  the  part  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  upon  the  Government 
of  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  including  the  so-called  'Alabama  claims,' "  &c, 

Mr.  Johnson  avowedly  made  this  proposal,  as  Lord  Clarendon  iuformed  you  in  his 
dispatch  of  the  22d  of  March,  1881>,  to  introduce  "  claims  to  compensation  on  account 
of  the  recognition  by  the  British  Government  of  the  belligerent  rights  of  the  Confeder- 
ates,"  which  the  British  Government  might  balance  by  "claims  to  compensation  for 
damages  done  to  British  subjects  by  American  blockades,  which,  if  the  Confederates 
were  not  belligerents,  were  illegally  enforced  against  them." 

Mr.  Johnson's  belief  was  that  the  Convention  was  unacceptable  because  it  did  not 
include  national  claims  on  account  of  the  recognition  of  belligerent  rights,  which  he 
purposely  distinguished  from  the  "Alabama  claims,"  and  was  in  no  respect  therefore 
inconsistent  with  his  dispatch  of  the  17th  February,  limiting  the  meaning  of  that  ex- 
pression. The  information  on  which  he  founded  that  belief  was  derived,  as  he  reported 
to  Mr.  Fish  on  the  9th  of  April,  1869,  from  a  private  source ;  and  his  suggestion  made 
in  the  same  dispatch,  that  instructions  should  be  given  to  him  to  endeavor  to  supply 
the  omission,  w^as  not  favorably  entertained  by  the  United  States  Government,  who 
telegraphed  in  reply  that  "  as  the  Treaty  was  then  before  the  Senate  no  change  was 
deemed  advisable." 

The  only  intimation,  as  I  have  stated,  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  possessed  of 
the  propriety  of  making  any  demands  for  national  losses  having  been  debated  or  con- 
sidered by  the  Senate,  was,  by  the  publication  of  Mr.  Sumner's  speech,  in  which  he 
urged  that  England  was  lial)le  for  national  injuries  of  the  most  extensive  character  ; 
but  these  injuries  were  rhetorically  deduced,  chiefly  from  the  Proclamation  of  Neu- 
tiality,  and  the  supplies  furnished  through  the  blockade. 

The  effect  of  Mr.  Sumner's  speech  in  England  was  reported  by  Mr.  Johnson  to  Mr. 
Fish  on  the  10th  of  May  :  "  If  an  opinion  may  be  formed  from  the  public  press,  there 
is  not  the  remotest  chance  that  the  demands  contained  in  that  speech  will  ever  be  rec- 
ognized by  England.  The  universal  sentiment  will  be  found  adverse  to  such  a  recog- 
nition. It  would  be  held,  as  I  hear  from  very  reliable  source,  to  be  an  abandonment  of 
the  rights,  and  a  disregard  of  the  honor  of  this  Government." 

Her  Majesty's  Government  never  learned  that  Mr.  Sumner's  views  were  indorsed  by 
the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Fish  next  mentions  hia  instructions  to  Mr.  Motley,  of  the  25th  of  September. 
These  instructions,  however,  were  not  communicated  to  Her  Majesty's  Government, 
and  when  Mr.  Motley  told  Lord  Clarendon  on  the  10th  of  .June,  1889,  that  the  Con 
vention  "  was  objected  to  because  it  embraced  only  the  claims  of  individuals,  and  had 
no  reference  to  those  of  the  two  Governments  on  eiwh  other;  and,  lastly,  that  it  settled 
no  question,  and  laid  down  no  principle,"  he  proceeded  to  speak  of  the  "risk  and 
responsibility"  incurred  by  a  Government  which  conferred  belligerent  rights,  and  thns 
his  representations  naturally  connected  themselves  with  Mr.  Johnson's  proposal  with 
regard  to  tbeynutual  claims  of  the  two  Governments. 

Mr.  Fish  amuits  that,  in  hia  dispatch  of  the  2,5th  of  September,  he  "  made  no  claim 
or  demand  for  either  direct  or  indirect  injuries." 

These  indirect  injuries  could  not  therefore  have  received  the  designation  of  "Ala- 
bama claims  "  from  that  dispatch. 

Indeed,  on  examining  the  extracts  which  he  gives  from  it  with  their  context,  it  is 
apparent  that  the  "  vast  national  injuries"  whicTi  he  states  that  he  presented  in  it  are 
ascribed  to  other  causes  than  the  acta  cohimitted  by  the  Confederate  cruisers. 


wm 


('ORKESl'ONI)KNCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.      .> 


09 


e  it  (lid  not 


(le  no  claim 
Ml  of  "Ala- 


Tho  firnt  extract,  beginning  "The  number  of  our  shipK  thus  directly  deHtroyed,"  &c  , 
follows  a  piiragrapU  coniplaiuiug  of  the  l'roclania<  ion  of  Neutrality :  "  In  virtue  of  the 
Proclamation,  maritime  enterpriHCH  in  the  ports  of  Great  liritaiu,  which  would  othcr- 
wlHe  have  been  piratical,  were  rendered  lawful,  and  thiin  Great  Britain  became,  and  to 
the  end  continued  to  be,  the  arsenal,  the  navj-yard,  an<l  the  treasury  of  the  Confed- 
eracy. 

"A  spectacle  was  thus  presented  withotit  precedent  or  parallel  in  the  history  of  civ- 
ilized nations,  Great  Britain,"  &c. 
The  second  extract  runs  thus  ; 

"  We  complain  that  the  insurrection  in  the  Southern  States,  if  it  did  not  exist,  was 
( ontinned,  and  obtained  its  endnrinj;  vitality  by  means  of  the  resources  it  drew  from 
(treat  Britain.  We  complain  that  by  reason  of  the  imperfect  discharge  of  its  neutral 
duties  on  the  part  of  tlie  tJ|U(5en's  Government,  (ireat  Britain  became  the  military, 
naval,  and  tinancial  basis  of  insurgent  warfare  against  th(«  United  States.  Wo  com- 
plain of  the  destruction  of  our  merchant  marine  by  British  ships,  manned  by  British 
seamen,  armed  with  British  guns,  dispatched  from  British  dock-yards,  sheltered  and 
harbored  in  British  jtorts.  We  complain  that,  by  reason  of  the  policy  "ud  octs  of  the 
Queen's  Ministers,  injury  in(;alculabie  was  inflicted  on  the  United  States. 

The  third  extract,  respecting  the  vast  national  injuries,  is  followed  in  the  dispatch 
by  a  passage  explaining  the  various  causes  of  injury,  which  Mr.  Fish  has  omitted  to 
notice  :  "  Nor  does  ho  attempt  now  to  measure  the  relative  effect  of  the  various  causes 
of  injury,  as  whether  by  untimely  recognition  of  belligerency,  by  sutJ'ering  the  fitting 
out  of  rebel  cruisers,  or  by  the  supply  of  ships,  arms,  and  nnmitious  of  war  to  the 
Confederates,  or  otherwise,  in  whatsoever  manner." 

Lord  Clarendon's  memorandum  of  observations  on  Mr.  Fish's  dispatch,  like  the  dis- 
patch itself,  touched  on  various  topics  beside  that  of  the  Confederate  cruisers,  and  Her 
Majesty's  Government  cannot  admit  that,  because  Mr.  Motley  read  a  dispatch  to  Lord 
Clarendon  on  the  12th  of  .January,  1870,  stating  that  Mr.  Fish  had  not  included  it 
"  among  the  papers  respecting  the  'Alabama  claims,' "  therefore  all  the  subjects  men- 
tioned in  it  were  "Alabama  claims.'' 

Still  less  can  they  admit  that  because  Mr.  Bernard,  in  the  14th  chapter  of  his  work, 
gave  certain  extracts  from  Mr.  Fish's  dispatch,  under  the  head  of  "  Alabama  claims," 
that  dispatch  became  the  standard  by  which  the  claims  known  as  the  "  Alabama 
claims"  was  to  be  measured.  It  happens  moreover  that,  in  the  extracts  given  by  Mr. 
Bernard  in  the  chapter  to  which  Mr.  Fish  refers,  the  three  passages  cited  by  Mr.  Fish 
in  his  present  dis]iatch  as  relui/iug  to  indirect  injuries  and  national  losses  are  omitted. 
It  only  remains  to  notice  the  Pru.>iident's  Message  of  December,  1869.  This  Message 
does  not  mention  the  "  Alabama  chxims,"  but  speaks  of  the  "  injuries  resulting  to  the 
United  States  by  reason  o*'  tlie  ourse  adopted  by  Great  Britain  during  our  late  Civil 
War." 

I  have  thus  been  able  tn  fih»»w,  upon  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Reverdy  Johnson,  the 
American  Minister,  corroborated  on  examination  by  the  extracts  cited  by  Mr.  Fish, 
that  for  the  first  seven  years  of  the  discussion  up  to  1869,  none  but  direct  claims  were 
"  known  as  '  Alabama  claims ;' "  and  that  in  the  only  authoritative  document  in  which 
national  indirect  injuries  were  mentioned,  up  to  the  time  of  the  recent  negotiation, 
they  were  not  described  iw  "  Alabama  claims,"  or  as  claims  of  any  description. 

Mr.  Fish  states  that  "oojjtinental  jurists  and  publicists  discussed  the  national 
claims  on  account  of  the  prolongation  of  the  war  under  the  head  of  '  ri^claniiitions,' 
having  '  qu'uu  rapport  indirect,  et  uullement  ua  rapport  direct  avec  les  d<Sprddations  re- 
ellement  commises  p^r  les  croiseurs.' " 

The  quotation  appears  to  be  taken  from  a  pamphlet  by  Dr.  Bltintschli,  entitled 
"Opinion  impartiale  snr  la  question  de  'I'Alabama'  et  sur  la  niaui6re  de  la  r(Ssoudre." 
In  this  pamphlet  Dr.  Bliintschli  reviews  the  various  points  mentioned  by  Mr.  Sumner 
in  his  speech  in  the  Senate  on  the  i:Uh  of  February,  1869,  including  the  recognition  of 
belligerency.  In  the  sixth  section  he  discusses  the  effects  attributed  by  Mr.  Sumner 
to  the  acts  of  the  "Alabama"  and  other  vessels,  and  states  that  all  the  effects  are  at- 
tributable, in  the  first  place,  to  the  cruisers  themselves,  and  not  to  the  British  Govern- 
ment. "  Sa  faute  ne  consiste  pas  b,  avoir  (Squip(S  et  appareill^  les  corsaires,  mais 
au'aroir  pan  etnpevhe  leur  armement  et  leur  sortie  de  son  territoire  neutre.  Mais  cette 
/aw/e' n'aqu'un  rapport  tndtrect  et  nullement  un  rapport  direct  avec  les  dt^prddations 
rt^ellement  commises  par  les  croiseurs."''  Dr.  Bliintscbli's  remark  did  not,  therefore, 
relate  to  claims  for  indirect  losses,  nor  does  the  word  "  reclamations"  occur  in  the  sen- 
tence, in  the  paragraph,  or  in  the  whole  section  from  which  the  quotation  is  taken. 
All  that  he  says  is  that  the  default  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  by  which  the  cruisers 
escaped,  has  but  an  indirect,  and  in  no  way  a  direct,  connection  with  the  depredations 
actually  committed  by  them. 
Mr.  Fish  gives  as  a  reason  for  no  claims  for  national  losses  having  been  "  defined"  or 

'  The  italics  are  Dr.  BlUntschli's. 

-"Revue  de  Droit  International  etde  L(5gislation  compar<5e,"  1870,  pp.  473-4. 


.:y,    B 


510 


TREATY    OF   WASIIIXGTON. 


rorniiiliitcd,  that  Lord  KiissHl  ohJtH-tt'd,  Jii  .Fiily,  IHOU,  to  any  clniiiiN  Ittiinj;  put  forward. 
Ah  Mr,  Adams  contiinied  to  i»rcscnt  clainis  for  tliedfHtniction  of  jtroporty  l)y  flu*  "Alii- 
haiiia"'  in  AiijjiiHt,  S(«i)tfnil»or,  and  <  )ctolM'r  of  that  yoar,  and  nnnilxtrH  of  Hiniihir  din-it 
rhiiniH  havu  Hintto  bfcii  preauutod,  Hur  >[a,ic'sty'H  Govttrnineiit  are  unablu  to  NCf  tlic 
forco  of  thiH  argument. 

Whatever  may  have  heen  th(<  reason,  the  faet  reinains.  tliat  np  to  Ihe  time  of  tlie 
arrival  of  tiie  Itritish  Hiuh  (JomniissionerH  at  Washington,  the  term  "Ahibama  elainis" 
Inid  a  recogni/.ed  and  well-lvnown  meaning;  as  direct  claims,  and  tliat  no  other  clainis 
had  been  jtreHented  to  the  Britisli  (Jovernnient.  Nor,  indeed,  were  these  othe  •  claims 
even  tlien  presented. 

The  American  lll)j;h  Commissioners,  as  ajtpears  by  the  I1(if1i  Protocol,  stated  tliat  the 
history  of  tiie  "Alabama,"  and  other  crnisers,  sliowed  extensive  direct  losses,  and  iii- 
ilirect  injury,  and  tliat  (Jreat  Mritain  had  become  .justly  liable /or  tlir  actn  of  those 
crnisers  and  their  tenders  ;  that  IhccUthnH  for  the  loss  and  destructitm  of  private  juo])- 
erty,  which  had  thus  far  lieen  presented,  amounted  to  about  l-l,(>()(),()(l(>  dollars,  ami 
"that  in  the  hope  of  an  amicabh!  settlement,  no  entimate  was  made  of  the  indirect 
losses,  without  ]»rejudic«%  hinvever.  To  the  rij^ht  to  indenmifleatioii  on  their  account, 
in  the  event  of  no  such  settlement  beinjj  made." 

The  "  indirect  losses  "  were  thus  nu'utioned,  not  as  c/aiiiis,  but  as  };rievauees,  and 
were  nuMitiom-d  only  to  bo  withdrawn  from  »liscussion, 

Mr,  Fish  says  that  it  is  nnfortutuite  that  the  British  Tli^jh  Commissioners  di<l  not 
remonstrate  ajjainst  the  ju'esentation  of  these  <'laims,  and  "  from  th<^  first  to  the  last 
took  no  (exception,  and  rctcorded  no  objection,  to  the  presentation  made  by  the  Amer- 
ican Counuissioners  of  the  claims  fioierieally  known  as  the  '  Alabama  claims,'  which 
stand  on  the  Protocol  as  a  '  jj"nus.' or  class  of  claims  comi)rehendiu<f  several  Hpecics, 
and  amonjj  them  (Miumeratiiifj  upecitically  the  claims  for  indirect  losses  and  injuries," 

The  answer  to  this  is,  that  no  nu'ution  is  nnide  in  the  Protocol  of  "  claims  generic- 
ally  known  as  the 'Alabama  claims,'"  or  of  any  sj)ecitic  enumeration  of  them,  or  of 
any  such  luvsentafiou  at  all.  All  that  occurred  was  the  above-mentioned  statement 
that  the  histcny  of  the  "Alabama"  and  other  cruisers  showed  indirect  injuries,  fol- 
lowed by  the  waiver  of  the  iiulemnilication  on  their  accotmt,  in  the  hojje  of  an  amica- 
ble settlement. 

The  British  Hif^h  Commissioners  thereupon  took  the  natural  course  of  not  "enter- 
inj;  upon  a  len<i;thened  ccmtroversy  "  upcui  the  barren  «|uestion  of  injuries  for  which 
they  iielievod  lu)  claim  was  presented,  and  these  indirect  losses  and  injuries  were  never, 
as  you  are  aware,  ajtain  bronjj;ht  forward  by  the  American  High  Commissioners,  nor 
did  they  re-ajtpear  until  they  were  revived  in  the  case  presented  by  the  United  States 
Anient  at  Cemna,  on  the  l.'jtli  of  December, 

Mr,  Fish  could  not  have  been  ignorant,  from  tin;  report  to  which  I  have  already  re- 
ferred, which  he  had  received  from  Mr,  Johnson,  and  from  the  discussiotis  in  the  pub- 
lic press,  of  the  feeling  in  England  with  regard  to  the  exaggerated  pretensions  in  Mr. 
Sumner's  speech;  and  when  he  intended  to  introduce  as  "  Alabama  claims"  similar 
claims  of  eiptally  onerous  character,  it  is  nmcdi  to  be  regretted  that  ho  and  his  col- 
leagues did  not  explain  more  clearly  that  by  "  an  amicable  settlement"  they  meant 
one  particular  form  of  settlement,  and  that  if  the  British  High  Commissioners  did  not 
ac(|uiesce  in  it,  they  would  bring  forward  the  constrnetive  claims,  for  which  au  enor- 
mous indemnity  might  be  held  due. 

Instead  of  this,  the  American  High  Commissioners  made  a  statement  which  was  ac- 
cepted by  the  British  High  Commissioners  and  read  by  Her  Majesty's  Government, 
and,  as  far  as  they  are  aware,  by  the  press  and  public  of  both  countries,  in  a  sense 
which,  it  is  m»w  stated,  the  American  High  Commissioners  never  intended  it  to  bear, 
but  which,  until  the  interpretation  appeared  in  the  American  Case,  seemed  the  only 
sense  in  which  it  could  be  read. 

Her  Majesty's  Uovernment  cannot  accept  the  view  which  Mr,  Fish  appears  to  enter- 
tain that  a  negotiation  mnst  necessarily  be  a  matter  of  bargain,  in  which  a  concession 
on  one  side  is  to  be  set  off"  in  each  instance  against  a  concession  on  the  other.  The 
waiver  of  the  constructive  claims  was,  as  I  stated  to  General  Schenck,  a  requisite  \)iv- 
liminary  to  the  negotiation,  because  Her  Majesty's  Government  could  not  (as  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  mnst  have  been  aware  then,  and  must  have  sitKO 
become  convinced)  have  assented  to  any  mode  of  settlement  which  comprised  these 
constructive  claims,  upon  which  the  opinion  of  this  country  had  already  been  pro- 
nounced so  strongly  when  they  were  raised  by  Mr.  Sumner. 

Mr.  Fish  asks,  "  How  could  it  happen  that  so  important  a  feature  of  the  negotiation 
as  this  alleged  waiver  is  now  represented  to  bo  was  left  to  inference,  or  to  argument 
from  intentions  never  expressed  to  the  Commissioners  or  theGovei'nmeut  of  the  United 
States  until  after  the  treaty  was  signed  ? 

"  The  amplitude  and  the  comprehensive  force  of  the  1st  Article  (or  the  granting 
clause)  of  the  Treaty  did  not  escape  the  critical  attention  of  Her  Majesty's  Commis- 
sioners ;  l>ut  was  any  eftbrt  nuule  to  limit  or  reduce  the  scope  of  the  submission,  or  to 
exclude  the  indirect  claims  ?" 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    (JENEVA    ARBITRATION.      .» 


II 


/^autTs,  iiiid 


Th«!  atiHWor  to  tliiH  Ih  that,  iw  th«  lh'Ht|)1a<;(>,  tlioliritiNli  ll'jjii  C<nmiiiHMi<»i»'rH  l»eli»'v«>(l 
tlint  aft(!r  tlui  waivor  tlusy  wen)  njjnuMl  with  tlie  riiit<Ml  Stutfs  lli^h  ('oiniiiiMHiimiMH 
upon  thu  baHiH  of  tlie  toriiiH  of  thtt  HiihiiiiHHion ;  ainl,  in  th<>  m>fon«l  )ii»<>i>,  that  thvy  did 
limit  tht^  m'opu  of  tlie  HiihniiHHion. 

Tho  ItritiHh  Hi^h  ConiniiNHionvrH,  in  the  information  which  they  Iwno  fniiiishi-d  to 
Her  MaJoHty's  Oovernment,  Imth  dnrin^^  the  n<';rotiation  and  siiK-r  the  ineHentiition  of 
tho  Aineriean  C'aNe,  havu  niuformly  maintained  that  tlie  chiinm  for  indirect  loHNes  were 
not  included,  nor  intended  l>y  them  to  he  inelinled,  in  tiie  terms  of  tho  HulnniHsion  to 
arbitration,  and  you  are  aware  that  tlie  MritiAh  Hi^li  CommiHNioners  ohjeeted  to  the 
luloption  of  a  form  of  reference  to  tlie  Arliitrators,  whitdi  nii^rht  from  itH  vajroeiiess  l>e 
taken  to  permit  the  introduction  of  hucIi  claims,  and  that  it  was  not  until  after  leii;;th- 
I'lied  disciissit)!)  in  the  CommisHion  that  tint  terms  of  reference  as  they  now  stand  in  tin- 
Treaty  were  settled. 

Her  Majesty's  (jiovernment  cannot  acknowledge  tln^  the  nature  of  the  claiinssultinit- 
ted  waH  left  to  inference.  <>ii  the  contrary,  the  precise  claims  referred  to  arbitration 
were  closely  deiined  and  limited. 

Mr.  Fish  writes  as  though  the  reference  to  arliitration  eoinprised  "  dilViTencps  "  and 
"complaiiits,"  and  "all  claims;"  liut  the  Itritish  Ili^h  ('oiM;i.issionerses|ieciaily  ^nardid 
ji;;ainst  this.  The  claims  submitted  nnist  be  liotli  ''claims  ^rowiu<;  out  of  the  ai  ts 
committed  by  the  aforesaid  vessels,"  i.  «■.,  "Alabama"  and  other  cruisers,  (lud  claims 
"  neiierically  known  as  the  'Alabama  claims.'  " 

The  use  of  the  words  "acts  committed"  adinittiMlly  excludes  the  (|Uestions  ef  block- 
iide-runniiiy  ami  concession  of  bellij^erent  riffhts  fnuii  tlie  arliitration,  and  the  speciti- 
cation  <if  tile  claiiiiH  as  "claims  ^enerically  known  as  the  'Alabama  claims' "  limits 
tliern  to  the  class  of  direct  claims  ;  which  it  has,  I  trust,  been  abundantly  shown  weic 
alone  known  at  tho  time  as  "Alabama  claims." 

Mr.  Eish  attaches  some  importance  in  sujiport  of  his  views  to  tho  words  "^rrowiiii; 
ont  o4"'  iiid  "  generically,"  but  tho  tirst  phrase  is  taken  from  Mr.  Adams's  letter  of  tin- 
:tlst  of  October,  IHfilJ,  when,  in  forwardinj{  "  a  number  of  memorials  and  other  iiajM-rs 
connected  with  the  depredations  of  the  vessel  formerly  called  the  "Oreto,'' and  now 
the  "Florida,"  ho  observed  that  "  the  conclusion  to  which  it  would  seem  that  both 
(JoverninentH  arrive  in  regard  to  the  dispoHition  to  be  uiadeof  tho  claims  growinj;  out 
of  the  depredations  of  the  'Alabama'  and  other  vessels  issuiiijj  from  liritish  ports  aji- 
pears  to  render  further  discussion  of  the  merits  of  the  «iue8tion  unnecessary  "  No  men- 
tion whatever  of  indirect  or  constructive  claims  had  been  made  at  this  time,  and  the 
claims  to  which  Mr.  Adams  referred  are  manifestly  the  claims  for  actual  «lama>;es. 

When  the  same  expressiou  is  used  again  it  must  be  taken  to  have  the  same  mean- 
ing. 

I  will  '  (it  follow  Mr.  Fish  into  the  etymolojfy  of  the  word  "  fjencrically."  "(Seiieri- 
cally  known  as  the  'Alabama  claims'"  seems  to  bo  the  same  as  the  "class  of  claims 
known  n':  V.  e  'Alabama  claims,'"  the  phrase  used  in  tho  Stanley-.Johnson  Convention, 
and  serves  to  distinguish  this  class  of  claims  from  every  other  class  of  claims  which 
the  United  States  Government  might  have  to  prefer.  The  "Alabama  claims"  have  been 
designated  as  a  "class  of  claims"  to  avoid  the  misapprehension,  which  at  one  time 
seemed  to  have  occurred  to  Mr.  Seward,  that  the  words  "Alabama  claims"  might  be 
constnifd  as  meaning  only  claims  on  account  of  injuries  sustained  from  the  one  vessel 
"Alabama."  The  phrase  itself  goes  very  far  to  define  its  own  limited  meaning;  for, 
while  it  is  qnite  intelligible  that,  for  brevity's  sake,  tho  name  of  one  vessel  should 
stand  for  others  of  a  particular  class,  of  which  it  is  the  principal  example,  it  appears 
to  bo  contrary  to  all  reason  that  the  name  of  such  a  particnlar  ship  should  be  used  to 
describe  claims  for  general  national  losses,  such  as  those  for  the  decline  of  the  commer- 
cial marine  of  the  United  States  and  the  prolongation  of  the  war. 

Mr.  Fish,  with  reference  to  the  remark  in  his  dispatch  of  the  '^7th  of  February,  tli.at 
tho  indirect  claims  are  covered  by  one  of  the  alternatives  of  tho  Treaty,  states  that 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  are  "  of  the  opinion  that  they  are  covered  by  the 
alternative  power  given  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  of  awarding  a  sum  in  gross,  in 
case  it  finds  that  Great  Britain  has  failed  to  fulfill  any  duty,  or  of  remitting  to  a  Hoard 
of  Assessors  the  determination  of  the  validity  of  claims  presented  to  them,  and  the 
amounts  to  be  paid." 

The  Vlth  Article  of  the  Treaty,  after  stating  the  three  Rules,  proceeds  :  "  Her  Britan- 
nic Majesty  has  commanded  her  High  Commissioners  and  I'lenipotentiarics  to  declare 
that  Her  Majesty's  Government  cannot  assent  to  the  foregoing  Rules  as  a  statement  of 
principles  of  international  law  which  were  in  force  at  the  time  when  the  claims  mnttiuned 


in  Artiele  I  arose ;  but  that  Her  Majesty's  Government 


agrees  that  in  de- 


ciding the  questions  between  the  two  countries  arising  out  of  those  claims,  the  Arbi- 
trators should  assume,"  &c. 

Article  VII  provides  that  "  the  said  Tribunal  shall  first  determine  as  to  each  vessel  sepa- 
rately whether  Great  Britain  has,  by  any  act  or  omission,  failed  to  fulfill  any  of  the  du- 
ties set  forth  in  the  three  foregoing  Rules,  or  recognized  by  the  principles  of  interna- 
tional law  not  inconsistent  with  such  Rules,  and  shall  certify  such  fact  as  to  each  of  the 


1  i 

1 

1 

;M 

'l 

512 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


said  vessels.  lu  case  tbo  Tribunal  find  tba'o  Great  Britain  has  failed  to  fulfill  any  dutif 
or  duties  as  aforesaid,  it  may,  if  it  think  proper,  proceed  to  award  a  sum  in  yross  to  liu 
paid  by  Great  Britain /or  all  the  elaims  r-iferred  to  it." 

All  the  claims  must  mean  all  the  "  claims  mentioned  in  Article  I." 

Mr.  Fish  admits  that  the  indirect  losses  are  not  covered  by  what  be  terms  the  o  Iut 
*' alternative  "  of  the  Treaty,  viz,  the  provision  in  Article  X,  that  "  in  case  the  Tri- 
liiinal  finds  that  Great  Britain  has  failed  to  fulfill  any  duty  or  duties  as  aforesaid,  and 
does  not  award  a  sum  in  gross,  the  High  Contracting  Parties  agree  that  a  Board  of 
Assessors  shall  bo  appointed  to  ascertain  and  determine  what  claims  arc  valid,  ami 
what  amount  or  ainounts  shall  be  paid  by  Great  Britain  to  the  United  States  on  ac- 
count of  the  liability  arising  from  such  failure,  as  to  each  vessel,  according  to  the  ex- 
tent of  such  liability  as  decided  by  the  Arbitrators." 

Mr.  W.  Beach  Lawre'.oe,  the  distinguished  American  publicist,  in  a  letter  dated  tlu^ 
'JOth  iilamo,  and  published  in  the  Springfield  Independent,  observes:  "As  in  t-ach 
rase  determined  against  Great  Britain,  the  Board  of  Assessors  are,  by  Article  X,  to  as- 
certain and  determine  the  amount  which  shall  be  paid  by  Great  Britain  to  the  I'nitcd 
States  on  account  of  the  liability  arising  fnmi  such  failure  as  to  each  vessel,  accordiiij; 
to  the  extent  of  s.ich  liability  as  decided  by  the  Arbitratv;r«,  there  would  seem  to  In- 
no  room  for  indirect  damages.  Besides  the  difficulty  of  deciding  on  a  claim  indctci- 
minablo  in  its  nature,  there  would  be  the  further  embarrassment  of  apportioning  t!ic 
amount  of  injury  growing  out  of  the  rets  of  each  vessel  in  the  general  account.  Is  it, 
jiossible  that  the  Assessors  are  to  decide  what  part  of  the  prolongation  of  the  war  is 
to  be  assigned  to  each  vessel  ?  I  .am  aware  that  there  is  a  provision  that  the  Arbitra- 
tors may,  after  they  have  decided  as  to  each  vesk'  i  separately,  award  a  sum  in  gmsi 
IVtr  all  the  claims  referred  to  them.  I  »;annot,  however,  perct^ive  how  that  provisioiii 
in  any  wise  extends  the  scope  of  the  ;..  ^'er  of  the  Tribunal."  Her  Ma  jesty's  Govern- 
ment cannot  perceive  it  either. 

By  both  Articles  V'll  and  X,  the  Arbitrators  are  to  determine  the  extent  of  the  lia- 
bility of  Great  Britain  as  to  each,  vessel,  /".  e.,  as  to  each  cruiser  separately.  Throiigli- 
out,  the  claims  are  strictly  connected  with  the  acts  of  the  cruisers.  Mr.  Fish  acknow  1- 
edges  that,  if  the  claims  are  considered  in  detail,  the  indirect  losses  cannot  be  takip 
into  account;  and  yet,  as  he  states, they  have  been  "'  presented  at  Geneva,  not  as  claims 
for  which  a  specific  demand  was  made,  but  as  losses  and  injuries  consequent  upon  tlif 
acts  complained  of,  and  necessarily  to  be  taken  into  equitalile  consi«leration  on  a  liual 
settlement  and  adjudication  of  all  the  ditferencos  submitterl  to  the  Tribunal." 

I  have  already  pointed  out  that  "claims'-  and  not  "ditferonciw"  have  been  sub- 
mitted; and  Mr.  Fish's  contention  would  amount  to  this,  that,  in  awarding  «laniaH;os 
for  a  specific  want  of  due  diligence  in  regard  to  a  particular  vessel,  the  Arbitrators 
should  take  into  consideration  a  variety  of  grievances  not  necessarily  connected  tvitli 
that  vessel,  and  which  could  not  bo  made  matters  for  a  claim  if  examincKi  in  detail, 
and  award  a  gross  sum  not  proportioned  to  tl  want  of  diligence  or  to  the  injiuy 
tliereby  occasioned,  but  swelled  by  the  amount  of  all  th>!  injuries  and  losses  of  which 
tlie  United  States  may  have  complained  in  all  the  cor  ipoudence  of  which  the  history 
of  the  cruisers  forms  part. 

That  is  to  say,  tliat  the  Arbitrators  should  give.indgmeiit  in  one  matter  and  intlict  a 
]Miiialty  for  another  matter.  A  principle  so  contrary  to  the  ordinary  practice  of  jiiris- 
]»rudeiice  could  iiof  have  been  presumed  by  the  British  High  Commissioners,  or  by 
Her  Majesty's  Govirnment,  to  have  been  intended  to  be  introduced,  unless  the  inten- 
tion was  exjilained  to  them;  but,  from  first  to  last,  no  mention  of  indirect  losses  was 
made  in  connection  with  the  payment  of  a  gross  sum. 

If  the  American  High  Commissioners  desired  that  the  alternative  of  the  award  ot  ii 
gross  sum  should  cover  the  elaims  for  indirect  losses,  why  were  thej'  not  moro  explicit  f 
a.i  1  why  did  they  not  re«(uire  some  provision  to  be  made  in  the  Treaty  to  explain  this 
fur  the  guidance  of  the  Arbitrators? 

Mr.  Fish  says  that  "the  claims  for  indirect  losses  were  presented  to  the  British  Coni- 
inissioners  as  sohMuuly  and  with  more  dvlinittness  of  speeifivation  than  were  presented  'w 
them  to  the  American  Commissioners  the  claims  for  alleged  injuries  which  tho  pcojilf 
of  Canatla  Avme  said  to  have  sulfered  from  what  was  known  as  the  Fenian  raids.'' 

Ihit  the  indirect  losses  were  never  "presented"  us  "claims,"  and  are  even  now  saiil 
not  to  be  "  priisented  as  claims  "  for  which  a  specific  demand  is  made  while  the  Fenian 
raid  "claims"  were  proposed  for  consideration  on  the  4th  of  March  ,  agft't?  "  Isouglit 
liefore"  the  High  Commission  on  the  '.ifith  of  A|U'il>  when  tho  iliitish  .i.igotiators  said 
that  "  they  were  instructed  to  jircsent  these  claims,"  and  it  was  not  until  the  Ihl  of  May 
that  they  said  that  "they  would  not  urge  further  that  the  Hettlemeut  of  these  claims 
Miiotild  be  include<l  in  the  present  Treaty.  .\nd  that  they  bad  the  less  <lifMculty  in 
doing  so,  as  a  portion  of  the  claims  were  of  a  <H>n8tructive  and  inferential  character." 

Thus  while  the  American  indirect  losses  were  only  mentioned  once,  ^nd  then  as  it 
were  ihcidentally,  tiie  Fenian  raid  eluims  were  repeatedly  and  formally  presented,  ami 
when  tlieir  withdrawal  from  the  negotiation  was  ugree«l  to  at  its  close,  it  was  with  a 
jHunark.  which  could  have  had  no  just  bearing,  hud  not  it  boon  believed  that  all  con- 


WIT 


CORRESPOXDEXCE    RESPECTIXG    GENEVA    ARBITR.VTIOX.      513 

stnictivi!  and  consetiueutial  claims  hail  b.H'n  wiMi«lr.<wa  au»l  exeliuled  on  the  Aiutnican 
si  do  als'>. 

Mr.  Fish  expresses  doubts  as  ♦^o  thu  noiiits  raised  in  ;ny  lottor  of  tlie20tli  of  Marcli, 
tliat  thti  Wasliin^ton  ClaiMis  (Joniiiiissioners  liavc,  and  tlib  ArhitratoiM  have  not,  power 
to  dt'.cido  upon  thn  extent  of  tlii'ir  own  .jnrisdii-tioii.aiid  tliat  :>o  words  iii mil ur  (.)  those 
conferring  that  power  are  to  be  found  in  I'uo  articles  relating  to  the  Geuova  Arbitra- 
tion. 

It  will  W  seen,  on  com|>aring  the  Treaty  of  Washington  with  tho  Claims  Convention 
between  (ireat  Britain  and  the  United  States  of  the  rtth  of  February,  IHo;?,  that  t'  , 
words  which  1  had  (pioted  from  theXIVth  Article  of  tho  former  are  identical  with  tho 
words  used  in  tlie  llli!  Article  of  the  latter,  under  which  the  Chiio! .  Coiuniissioners 
were  empowered  to  give,  and  did  undoubte<lly  give,  decisions  as  to  the  extent  of  their 
jurisdietion:  as  foi  instance,  in  the  claims  for'iexas  boiuis  of  .lanu's  lloiford's  execu- 
tors, and  I'liiiip  Dawson,  and  for  Florida  bonds  of  Heneage  W.  Dering,  and  in  other 
(■uses.  (See  Senate  Executive  Documents,  No.  lOlJ,  34tli  Congress,  1st  session,  pp.  03, 
iU.) 

The  Articles  engaging  to  consider  the  results  of  tho  proceedings  of  tin*  Tribunal,  and 
of  the  Claims  Commission,  respectively,  as  Hnal  settlements,  ArticdesXl  and  XVII,  ar 
in^')  adopted  from  the  C<mvention  of  1H,')3,  Article  V;  and  had  it  been  «lesired  to  give 
the  same  i)ower8  of  Jni  is«lietion  to  the  Arbitrators  as  to  the  Commissioners,  a  clause  sim- 
ilar to  that  in  the  XlVth  Article  would  have  been  inserted  to  express  i.. 

In  the  absence  of  such  a  clause  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Arbitrators  remains  restricted 
to  the  particular  claims  "  known  as  Alabama  claims,"  submitted  to  them  in  Article  I. 

Her  Majesty's  Government  "anuot  admit  that  a  power  which,  wiien  it  is  designed  to 
be  given  to  the  Claims  Commissioners  in  one  part  of  the  Treaty  is  given  in  express 
words,  can  be  inferentially  assumed  to  be  given  in  another  part  of  the  Treaty  to  the 
Arbitrators,  liy  assigning  a  broad  signitication  to  the  term  "  (juestion  "  lu  the  lid 
Article. 

Tho  questions  which  tho  Arbitrators  are  to  examine  and  decide  are  obviously  all 
questions  that  may  be  laid  before  them  by  the  respective  (iovernments,  in  jueferring 
and  refuting  the  particular  claims  on  wiich  tlieir  judgment  is  recijuested,  aiiu  the 
Article  must  be  read  in  connection  with  the  8uccee<ling  Articles  III,  IV,  and  V,  juovid- 
iiig  how  the  Cases,  Couuter  Cases,  evidence,  and  arguments  are  to  be  brought  before 
them. 

Mr.  F^ish  cannot  mean  that  tho  Arbitrators  may  decide  "any  questiiuis  "  not  coming 
within  the  terms  of  the  reference  to  the  Tribunal.  If  that  were  to  be  the  case.  Hit 
Majesty's  Government  might  bring  forward  as  a  set-otf  ,'igainst  the  "  Aiabaiuii  claims" 
tbe  (juestions  of  tho  injury  done  to  British  trade  by  tlie  blockade,  or  the  Frnian  raids, 
or  possibly  other  questions.  In  sliort,  a  sco]»e  wr.uld  be  given  to  the  Arbitration  which 
the  United  States  Government  could  not  have  contemplated,  and  wouhl  probably  bo 
unwilling  to  admit. 

Mr.  Fish  states  that  '•'the  United  States  calmly  subihitted  to  the  Commission  the  de- 
cision of  its  jurisdiction  "  over  the  Cottim  Loiin  Chiims;  but  this  statement  does  not 
appear  to  be  at  all  borne  out  by  the  "  Arguun.'iit  for  the  United  States  on  motion  to 
(iisMii.ss"  tiiese  claims. 

The  United  Stat 'S  Agent  moved  for  the  dismissal  of  the  claim,  as  not  being  included 
iMuli-r  th«'  Ireaty.  and  itlainly  notilie<l  that  t'.n?  United  States  rtdused  to  permit  it  to 
III' consicU'rcMl  as  includi'd ;  his  argument  being  that  tliere  was  a  constitntiona!  pro- 
vision whicii  iirt'vented  the  ])ayment  <d'  sucli  claims,  that  tliis  was  known  to  the 
American  Commissioiuus  when  ne;;otiating  the  tn'aty,  to  tlie  American  GovernnuMit 
wlieii  accepting  it,  and  to  the  Senates  when  ratifying  it,  iind  that  it  was  impossible  for 
the  United  States  to  pay  or  to  eonsidtr  the  question  of  paying  the  claims. 

■  It  must  be  lioriie  in  mind,"  he  said,  "  that  at  the  time  of  this  correspondence,  as 
well  as  at  the  time  of  the  condnsion  and  ratili<*atiou  ot  the  Treaty,  the  Constitution 
(it  the  Uiiit(td  States  contained  an  expn'ss  prohibition  of  the  assiiniplitui  or  pityiueut 
III'  these  debts  by  the  United  States,  or  by  any  Stale.  That  «'very  olHcfr  of  the  Uiiiti'd. 
Sti!..'*.  execufive,  legislative,  and  judicial,  was  thus  bound  by  the  supreme  law  «d"  the 
Liiid  anl  by  his  oath  of  oltlce  to  treat  as  utterly  mdl  any  provision  ol  any  Treaty  or 
stilt  lite  ill  contra  volition  of  that  cuustitutional  prohibition,  under  penalty  of  impeach- 
iiiciit  or  its  e(|iiival«',iit." 

The  Agent  coucliideil  liy  asking  "  tho  dismission  of  the  claim  on  tho  ground  specified 
in  his  niolion." 

In  short,  he  positively  tle<;lared  tuat  no  award  unfavorable  to  the  United  States 
would,  (M'  could,  have  been  accepted  and  paid. 

Then-,  are  several  other  statements  niadv  by  Mr.  Fish  which  are  ojien  to  reply,  but  I 
li;ive  roiHideied  it  snnicient,  for  the  )inrposes  of  thiMdispatch,  toconhne  my  comments 
til  those  which  bear  more  immediately  on  the  negotiation  and  interpretulion  of  the 
liviity, 


1  am,  <lVc. 


33  A— II 


GRANVILLE. 


!>; 

1  ■■'■•f. 

i 

514  TREATY    OP^    WASHINGTON. 

[BVom  British  Blue  Book  "North  America,"  No.  9,  (1872,)  p.  18.] 

No.  48. 

Sir  E.  Thornton  to  Earl  (IranrlUe.^ 
[Extract.] 

WAsniNGTON,  May  13,  1872.    (Keceis-ed  INIay  20.) 

I  paid  a  vi.sit  to  ^Ir.  Fish  at  the  State  Department  on  the  0th  instant, 
when  he  read  nie  a  number  of  telegrams  which  had  recently  passed 
between  liiinself  and  Oeneral  Schenck  relative  to  conversation.s  which 
yonr  Lordship  had  held  with  the  latter  on  the  subject  of  the  indirect 
claims. 

Mr.  Fish  ajipeared  to  think  that  not  only  did  Tier  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment <leclare  that  the  right  to  i>resent  claims  for  indirect  damages  was 
not  granted  by  the  Treaty,  bnt  that  it  further  wished  to  compel  the 
United  States  to  recognize  and  admit  that  it  was  so.  Mr.  Fish  added, 
that  as  his  Government  had  always,  and  in  the  most  formal  manner, 
declared  and  argued  tie  contrary,  it  would  be  a  humiliation  to  which 
the  United  States  could  not  submit,  now  to  confess  that  the  presenta- 
tion of  the  indirect  claims  by  the  United  States  Government  was  ma<le 
in  spite  of  its  knowledge  that  those  claims  were  not  comprised  in  the 
Treaty.  I  declared  to  JNfr.  Fish  that  I  was  convinced  that,  however  sat- 
isfied I  was  that  ITer  Majesty's  Government  maintaiiu'd  its  own  opinion 
on  the  subject,  I  did  not  imagine  that  it  had  any  wish  to  force  the  United 
States  Government  to  hold  or  declare  the  same  opinion. 

IJut  Mr.  Fish  expressed  his  opinion  that  there  was  now  little  chance 
of  the  Treaty  being  carried  out;  and  he  did  not  hesitate  to  ground  it 
upon  his  belief  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  h.ad  no  desire  for  its  con 
tinuance.     It  is  needless  to  trouble  your  Lordship  with  all  the  arguments 
which  I  Used  to  combat  this  opinion. 

I  thought  it  expedient  to  send  your  Lordship  a  short  telegram  on  the 
subject,  and  on  the  receipt  of  your  satisfactory  answer*  on  the  followiiij; 
day  showed  it  to  Mr.  Fish,  who  seemed  much  relieved  by  its  contents, 
and  still  more  gratified  when  I  informed  him  that  your  Lordship  had 
communicated  to  General  Schenck  a  J)raft  Treaty  Article  such  as  Her 
Majesty's  Government  could  {a'-cei>t. 

I  ha<l  the  honor  to  re(!eive  a  copy  of  that  article  during  the  night  of 
the  10th  instant.  Not  knowing  whether  Mr.  Fish  had  also  received  it, 
I  wrote  to  him  early  in  the  nu)rning  of  the  11th  instant,  informing  him 
that  I  had  received  the  document  in  question,  anil  that  if  it  had  not 
reached  him  I  shouhl  be  glad  to  show  it  him.  He  at  once  came  to  my 
house,  said  that  he  Innl  also  rec'eived  a  copy,  and  upon  my  asking  hiiu 
what  lie  thought  of  it,  he  answered  that  it  had  struck  him  favorably. 

I  did  not  see  ]\Ir.  Fish  again  till  yesterday  afternoon,  when  he  told 
me  that  he  had  submitted  the  Article  to  the  President,  who  was  like 
wise  favorably  impressed  with  its  contents,  and  had  decided  that  it 
should  be  communicated  to  the  Senate  for  its  consideration  and  advice. 
Mr.  Fish  added,  that  he  had  telegraphed  to  that  ettect  to  Genend 
Schen<^k  on  the  afternoon  of  the  llth  instant. 


'  Tht?  HiiliHtain'e  of  tiiiN  (llHpati'ii  was  r«»<'t1ved  by  teipgrafJi  on  the  lOth  of  May. 

'Lnril  (iraiivillp  liad  iiiforiiied  Oeneral  Sehenck  that  Mr.  Fish  waH  nnder  a  coinitlctc 
miKtake.  We  denire  to  maintain  the  Treaty;  we  do  not  deHiro  to  force  the  Uniti'il 
8taten  to  aeknowledfje  that  the  indirect  claims  do  not  by  the  Treaty  come  under  tin' 
juriHdiciion  of  the  arbitration.  But  we  decline  to  assent  to  any  contrary  underHtmid- 
iiig  on  our  purt. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   AKHITRATION.    515 

Mr.  Fish  stated  tliat  it  would  be  submitted  to-day  to  the  Senate,  and 
with  it  copies  of  the  four  notes  which  had  passed  between  your  Lordship 
and  General  Schenck  on  the  subject  of  the  indirect  claims,  and  of  some 
recent  telegrams  between  the  latter  and  Mr.  Fish. 

1  told  Mr.  Fish  that,  in  my  o[)inion,  the  wording  of  the  Draft  Article 
was  very  dear,  and,  as  far  as  1  could  judge,  was  in  exact  accordance 
with  the  views  which  he  had  recently  expressed  to  me  in  his  conversa- 
tions upon  the  subject;  I  therefore  ventured  to  entertain  a  hope  that, if 
it  were  acceptable,  it  would  be  accepted  as  it  stood.  Mr.  Fish  said  that 
he  did  not  himself  see  anything  that  need  be  changed  in  the  substance 
of  the  Draft  Article,  though  one  or  two  Senators  were  of  opinion  that 
some  of  the  words  might  be  changed  so  as  to  render  the  meaning  more 
clear  with  reference  to  the  piinciple  which  it  was  intended  to  lay  down. 
But  he  thought  that  this  might  arise  from  the  ditterence  of  interpreta- 
tion which  was  sometimes  given  in  the  two  countries  to  the  same  words. 


^^o.  49. 
General  SchencJc  to  Mr.  Fish. 


[Extract.] 

No  225.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  May  14,  1872.    (Received  ^May  27.) 

Sir:  Since  my  Xo.  210  on  the  2d  instant,  our  correspoiulence  by  tele- 
graph has  been  so  constant  and  full,  that  I  must  refer  to  that  mainly 
for  a  conne(!ted  history  of  what  has  transpired. 

It  would  be  vain  to  attem[>t  to  give  anything  like  a  detailed  account 
of  what  passed  or  was  said  in  the  almost  daily  interviews  and  conversa- 
tions, and  sometinu'S  much  oftener  than  daily,  and  often  lasting  for 
bours  at  a  tinu',  which  took  ])lace  between  Lord  Granville  and  me.  I 
sought,  as  my  telegrams  will  show,  to  keep  you  continually,  regularly, 
and  clearly  informed  as  to  results,  and  witii  my  last  dispatch  (No.  224) 
I  furnished  you  (;opies  of  all  the  notes  and  written  matter  which  came 
to  me  with  the  new  Treaty  Article  [)roposed  by  this  Government. 

Perhaps,  however,  I  cannot  better  report  or  explain  to  you  the  man- 
ner and  spirit  with  which  1  sought  to  }>resent  and  urge  the  views  of  our 
Governmt'tit  in  this  contention  about  the  presentation  of  the  claims  for 
indirect  damages,  than  by  tbrwarding  to  you  the  annexed  copy  of  a 
paper  which  I  read  to  Lord  Granville  on  the  morning  of  the  10th 
instant. 

By  referring  to  my  several  telegrams  of  the  9th,  you  will  observe  that 
nt  the  end  of  that  <lay,  it  seemed  as  if  all  hope  of  agreement  between 
tlie  two  Governments  must  be  given  up.  Her  Majesty's  (iovcrnment 
bad  expressed  their  decision  against  the  suggestion  of  a  new  Article  as 
a  mode  of  settlement,  and  I  had  infornunl  them  that  lu)  note  could  be 
accepted  by  the  President  and  ass<'nte<l  to  which  did  not  embody  the 
conditions  expressed  in  your  telegram  of  the  27th  of  April. 

But  early  next  morning  came  the  message  from  Lord  Granville  ask- 
ing me  to  telegraph  you  inunediately  that  a  (^abiiiet  would  be  held  that 
jilay,  aiul  that  he  wished  me  to  meet  him  aft  "rwards.  •  • 

1  did  not  wait  for  the  conclusion  of  the  Cabinet  meeting,  but  sought 
liord  Granville  ahnost  imme<liately  at  the  Foreign  Ofilce.     I  had  made 


r 


510 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


U])  iny  miinl  to  i)reseiit  once  more  to  His  Lordsliip,  as  brieti.v  and  yet  as 
cleaiiy  as  I  could,  a  suininary  statiMiieiit  of  the  views  of  my  Govenunoiit, 
and  the  position,  as  I  understood  it,  of  the  question  between  us.  I  liad 
to  this  end  very  hastily  prepared  myself  by  reducing  what  I  had  to  say 
to  him  to  writing,  in  order  that  there  might  be  no  misunderstanding 
afterward  of  the  points  advanced,  or  of  my  language.  This  was  tlie 
paper  of  which  I  send  you  a  copy.  Lord  Granville  came  out  of 
Cabinet  to  meet  me.  I  rea<l  it  to  him,  and  placed  as  much  of  it  as  was 
copied  in  his  hands.  I  afterward  furnished  him  a  full  copy.  He  replied 
at  once  verbally  by  informing  me  that  Iler  Majesty's  Govern uu'iit 
Avould  probably  conclude  to  taiie  the  initiative  and  jiropo.se  a  Treaty 
Ai  tide,  in  which  case  the  jnoposal  in  such  form  as  it  might  be  agreed  to 
ofter  it,  would  be  communicated  to  nie  after  the  Cabinet  had  decided; 
and  afterward,  on  that  day,  the  proposed  article  was  delivered  to  me. 
Jf  my  summing  up  that  morning  did  not  contribute  towards  bringing 
this  conclusion  to  the  correspondence  antl  discussion,  at  least  it  did  not 
prevent  this  Government  from  concurring  in  what  I  regarded  as  the 
only  eftective  form  of  adjustment  which  appeared  to  remain  to  us. 

It  is  not  for  me  to  comment  now  on  the  merits  of  this  plan  of  adjust- 
ment which  has  been  placed  before  the  Senate  for  consideration.  Be- 
fore this  disi)atch  can  reach  you,  that  body  will  probably  have  advised 
the  President  to  accede  to  it,  or  will  have  refused  its  assent.  1  sincerely 
trust  that  the  former  will  be  the  decision  arrived  at.  This  I  venture 
to  say,  not  from  a  desire  merely  to  adopt  what  seems  to  be  perhaps 
the  only  remaining  chance  of  preserving  a  Treaty  so  iniportant  to  tlie 
peace  and  interests  of  the  two  countries,  but  because  I  think  the  principle 
declared  in  this  Article  for  future  observance  between  the  two  nations  is 
one  which  if  settled  and  maintained  must  be  of»inestimable  advant.ige 
to  the  Unite«l  States.  With  our  chances  of  being  generally  neutral  wiieii 
Great  Britain  and  other  European  Stuies  are  belligerent,  the  benefits  of 
the  rule  are  to  be  i>rincipally  and  olteuest  ours.  Our  continental  jwsi- 
tion,  our  extended  sea-coast,  our  numerous  ports,  the  enterprising  char- 
acter of  our  citi7>ens,  and  the  ditUculty  of  restraining  their  spirit  of  ad- 
venture, surely  make  the  rule  that  would  thus  be  establishe«l  more  val- 
uable and  more  favorable  to  the  United  States  than  to  perhaps  any 
other  country. 

All  this  we  secure  in  exchange  for  the  surrender  of  ceitain  claims 
which  we  were  pressing  before  the  Arbitrators  at  (Jeneva,  not  with  a 
view  to  pecuniary  (compensation,  but  only  because  they  wen*  a  portion 
of  the  grounds  of  disagreement  between  us  and  (Jreat  Britain,  upon 
which  that  Tribunal  was  empowered,  for  the  sake  of  iKMlect  peace,  to 
make  an  award,  while  we  ourselves  did  not  hesitate  to  admit  that  it 
must  be  to  our  gain  to  have  the  decision  against  us.  *  #  ♦ 

1  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

JiOBT.  C.  SCIIENCK. 


[Inclo  n  o  in  No.  4!).] 

Siimmaiy  of  I'icwxof  (he  Uniled  Stnhunn  t'lr  intHrert  ilaimn  read  by  General  Svhinrk  to  I'arl 

(intHviUe  on  May  Id,  IHT'J. 

Goiioial  Sclu'iick,  in  an  interview  with  Lord  Granvill»N  Huniincil  np  wliat  lii'  ro^anlt'd 
an  tlie  present  position  of  tlie  rpiestion  between  tlie  two  GoverniniMits  in  tlie  followiii;; 
remarks,  wliieli  bo  liuil  reclnced  t«»  writing  to  prevent  niisunderMtandin;?  of  his  views 
or  lanKiiagi! : 

When  we  jiarted,  after  our  loinr  conversation  yesterdny,  your  last  words  to  mo  wore 
these:  "  I  <arofnIly  avoid  anythinjj  that  may  Ite  (Minstrued  into  niena(!e,  hut  in  eoiiso- 
qnenee  of  tlie  views  and  infrn'maf  ion  yon  liave  presented  to  me  yesterday  ami  to-(iiiy  I 
take  an  nnfavorablo  view  of  tho  ciiances  of  settlomeut."    Tliose  words  1  felt  it  my 


CORRESrOXDENCE    RESPECTING    OEXEVA    ARBITRATION.    'Al 


■'yfw>i>'  w 


s'c/khcA  /()  iMfl 


duty  to  toleyraiih  Inst  iiijibt,  an  I  toM  you  I  would,  to  my  (ioveiiimout,  ami  I  addi-J  to 
thfin,  "I  told  Lord  fiiaiivilh?  that  I  was  of  the  sami^  mind." 

It  was  painful  to  me  lieyoiid  cxprcsfiion  to  liav<!  to  do  this — a  <i;ravo.  tiling  to  liavo  to 
bolicvo  that  th»;  n'siilt  of  all  tho  labor  and  care  which  led  to  the  making  of  the  Treaty 
of  Washington — tho  end  of  all  the  hopes  which  it  had  inspired  for  the  future  of  our 
two  countries,  and  for  the  cause  of  civilization  and  the  nations — was  to  he  but  failure, 
disappointment,  and  estrangement,  instead  of  success,  close  and  lasting  friendship,  ami 
jM'ace.     I  have  not  slept  well  on  that  conclusion  to  our  iiiterviinv. 

If  this  be  the  end,  then  I  am  well  aware  that  each  (iovernmeiit  will,  in  ou(^  form  or 
.•viiother,  present  its  explanation  to  the  world,  all  the  States  an<l  peoples  of  which,  it  is 
no  exaggeration  to  say,  are  waiting  the  issue  ot Our  attempts  to  c(une  to  a  good  under- 
stamling;  and  each  party  will  naturally  seek  to  Justify  itself  and  to  throw  the  blame 
on  the  otiier. 

This  must  be  my  excuse,  at  the  risk  of  too  much  repetition,  f(U'  one  uu>re(!t1brt,  which 
must  now,  in  this  picssure  of  time,  i»e  hastily  and  impertectly  nuide,  to  jiresent  the 
views  and  position  of  my  (iovernnu-nt  in  relation  to  tho  points  on  which  we  so  unfor- 
tunately diU'er. 

The  (lirticulty  lias  its  root  entirely  in  the  opposing  interpretations  given  to  the  Treaty 
by  the  two  Governments. 

The  Unitf'd  States  understand  that  it  was  the  intention  of  that  instrument  to  provide 
(I  mode  for  the  settlement,  wiping  away,  and  blotting  out  Ibrever  of  all  claims  against 
(ireat  Hritain  growing  out  of  the  acts  of  tlit!  Alabama  and  other  such  cruisers;  and 
tlicy  claim  therefore  to  put  forward,  and  have  i>ut  tbrward.  in  their  Case  befor;;  the 
Arbitrators,  the  wholeoftheirdemandsfordamages, direct  and  indirect.  This  they  insist 
they  may  rightfully  do;  and  that  they  are  entitled  to  ask  and  exjx'ct  of  the  Arbitrators 
a  decision  as  to  each  class  of  claims,  as  to  its  admissibility  behue  the  Tribunal  for  con- 
sideration in  the  first  iiistanee,  and  if  a<l.iudged  admissible,  then  such  award  as  that  High 
International  Court  constituted  by  theTreaty  may  think  it  just  within  the  scope  of  their 
powers  to  make.  Ihit  the  United  States  have  not  desired  or  expected  any  award  of  com- 
licnsation  fro  n  Great  Britain  for  tho  indirect  damages.  They  have  »^ven  been  free  to 
nliiiit  in  ailvance  that  it  would  l)e  better  for  their  future  advantage  and  the  interest  of 
nations  generally  that  the  judgment  of  the  Arbitrators  should  b»(  adverse  to  that  class  of 
claims.  What  tliey  contend  for  is  the  right  niidt-r  the  Treaty  to  submit  them  for  con- 
sideration, as  a  known  jiart  of  their  deman<ls  against  Cireat  Britain;  and  that  it  is 
i  iiportaiit  to  both  countries  and  in  the  interest  of  jieace  and  good  feeling  that  every 
i|nesliou  in  regard  to  such  claims  should  bo  solemnly  consitlLtid  and  i)assed  upon,  so 
that  they  may  disajipcar  forever. 

Great  Britain  maintains  that  it  is  not  within  tho  meaning  and  intention  of  tho 
Treaty  that  such  claims  should  be  jdaeed  before  the  Tribunal,  or  that  they  ccmie  within 
the  pntvince  of  the  Arbitrators  to  consi(bT  and  decide  ujion. 

The  long  argumentativi'  discussion  of  this  point  has  ended  unfortunately  in  n<-ither 
piirty  being  able  to  convince  the  other  of  the  son  idnessof  its  iuteri>rclation. 
Each  is  lioiiud  to  admit  good  faith  and  fair  iineiition  in  the  other. 
Both  nations  desire  mutual  and  cordial  friendship. 
Both  are  earnestly  and  sincerely  desirous  to  maintain  the  Treaty. 
Some  other  way  t)Ut  of  the  dil1i(;ulty,  tht-refore,  must  be  found  if  these  objects  are  to 
lie  attained. 

Anticipating  this  ii  reconcilable  disagreement  on  the  jioint  of  interpretaticui.  \ari(uis 
I'xpiMlieiits  were  suggested  as  i)robable  means  for  escape  fKun  the  dilemma,  even  be- 
t'lae  the  ccuicliision  of  the  discussion  had  been  reached  ;  but  muie  of  these  suggestions 
were  adopted  or  acted  on,  an<l  it  is  now  unnecessary  to  revive  or  refer  to  them. 

At  the  last,  in  conseiiiienet!  of  a  conversation  between  himself  ami  the  British  Minis- 
ter at  Washington,  ilr.  Fish  Avas  led  to  believe  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  might 
make  a  j)roi)osal  to  tho  etl'eet  that  they  would  engage  that  in  the  future,  should  (Jieat 
Itiitain  be  a  ludligerent  and  the  L'nitetl  States  neutral,  and  should  there  be  any  liiilnre 
(III  the  i)art  of  the  United  States  to  cdiserve  their  neutral  obligations,  (inat  Britain 
will  make  or  advance  no  claims  against  the  United  States  by  reason  or  on  account  of 
;iiiy  indirect,  remote,  or  eonse(|ueiitial  n'sultsof  such  failure,  and  that,  in  consideration 
(if  such  stipulation,  the  United  States  shall  not  juess  for  a  pecuniary  award  of  dain- 
iij;es  before,  Iho  Geneva  Tribunal  on  account  of  the  claims,  respecting  which  (ireat 
Ihitain  has  e\)iressed  the  opinion  that  they  are  not  included  in  the  submission,  viz, 
the  transfer  of  the  American  shi])piiig,  increased  iiisuranc(>,  and  the  ]irolongation  of  the 
war.  If  such  n  proposal  should  bo  nindo  by  the  Biitish  (ioveriiiiH'Ut  they  were  in- 
formed that  tho  I'resident  would  assent  to  it.  But  it  was  to  be  under.stood  that  thero 
was  no  withdrawal  of  any  ]»art  of  the  Case  of  Ihts  United  States,  but  an  ngreement  not 
t(i  demand  damages  on  acc<uii>t  ot  ♦hoso  particular  claims,  leaving  the  Tribunal  to 
iiinkt^  such  expression  of  opin'on  as  it  uiight  think  ])roper  on  that  question.  A  coni- 
nuiniention  to  this  effect  was  made  to  ti.'(  British  Government,  antl  a  form  of  a  note 
was  given  m*;  containing  i  i  some  sort  ii  pio])osal  of  this  kind  to  be  submitted  to  my 
Oovernmeiit,  but  it  was  foii.id  to  bo  in  so  many  essential  particulars  difleient  from  tho 
Hiiggostiou  which  was  und  astood  to  have  bet'i  made  l»y  Sir  Edwar«l  Tliornton,  and 


i 


I' 

if 


[!<»» 


518 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


which  hnil  t'oininpndcd  itself  to  Mr.  Fish,  that  it  was  not  assontod  to  by  the  Presiticnt. 
A  iiiodiliciitioii  of  this  note  wassnbsequently  made,  and  it  was  snbniitted  iii  an  amended 
form. 

The  modified  note  omitted  or  chan;;cd  some  portion  of  what  was  objectionablo  in 
the  tirst  i)roi)08al,  bnt  was  still  so  far  diort  of  what  is  consistent  with  the  views  und 
position  «)f  the  United  States  that  it  could  not  be  accepted. 

Thojjronnds  of  objection  to  the  proposal  as  framed  and  presented  by  this  note  I  will 
ber»;after  state. 

There  was  then  a  sngjjf^stion  nmde  to  Her  Majesty's  Government  that  tiieir  proposal 
mi^rht  bo  submitted  in  the  shape  of  a  new  article  to  be  added  to  the  Treaty  of  Wash- 
ington. This  would  etleetually  bind  both  nations  for  the  future  to  the  observanc'e  of 
the  rule  which  they  might  agree  on,  and  would  renn)ve,  if  itroj)erly  an«l  carefully 
framed,  all  objections  nuule  to  au  interchange  of  notes  as  a  secure  and  *;rt'eetive  mode 
of  reacdiing  the  object  in  vitnv. 

But  Her  Majesty's  Goverinnent,  it  is  understood,  altogether  decline,  or  have  thus  far 
declined,  to  open  any  negotiation  to  deliiu!  by  treaty  the  extent  or  limit  of  the  respon>*i- 
bility  of  a  neutral  to  a  belligerent  for  iiulirect  or  consequential  damages.  I  deeply 
regret  this,  and  my  Government  regrets  it;  and  I  will  proceed  to  ex]dain  luesently 
wherein  it  is  thought  a  treaty  stipnlaticni  has  an  advantage  over  any  other  form  of 
agreement,  and  ouglit  to  W  desired  by  both  jiarties. 

But  to  return  to  tlKMliflicuUy — nay,  the  impossibility — of  adjusting  the  disagreement 
by  an  interchange,  of  iu)tes,  if  we  must  adopt  the  form  and  substance  itf  the  projiosid 
otVered  in  tliat  shai)e  by  the  British  (Government.  In  the  fust  i)lace,  that  i)roposal,  as 
Great  Britain  ajijiears  to  be  only  willing  to  present  it,  either  directly  stipulates  for,  or 
imi>lies,  a  withdrawal  or  abandonment  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  of  the  indirect 
claims;  that  is,  to  regard  and  treat  them  as  eliminated  I'roni  the  case  yuesented  to  the 
Arbitrators,  and  not  to  be  in  any  way  considi-red  or  adjudged  as  the  svibject  of  award 
by  the  Tribunal.  The  British  Government  holds — notwithstanding  the  principle  that 
every  tribunal  must  necessarily,  by  its  very  creation,  possess  an  inherent  right  and 
power  to  decide  questions  relating  to  its  own  jurisdiction,  considering  inevitably  and 
at  the  very  threshold  whether  a  matter  brought  before  it  is  or  is  not  one  of  which  it 
can  take  cognizance — the  British  Government  hcdds  that  the  Arbitrators  cannot  look  at 
the  indirect  claims  even  for  the  purpose  of  determining  that  thej'  are  inadmissible. 
This  is  not  overstating  their  ytosition,  extravagant  as  it  nuiy  seem,  when  they  maintain 
that  under  the  Treaty  the  United  States  ha«l  no  right  to  put  such  claims  forward  in 
their  Case.  But  the  United  States  not  only  nuiintains  that  the  meutiouing  and  putting 
forward  of  these  claims  is  rightful,  with  a  view  to  obtaining  a  judgment  as  to  their 
admissibility,  bnt  also  hold  that  it  was  the  intent  and  meaning  of  the  Treaty  that  they 
Hhould  be  submitted  for  whatever  tluiy  nuiy  be  wortli,  even  if  this  has  to  be  done  only 
with  a  view  to  get  rid  of  them  as  a  cause  of  dilVcrence  and  complaint  between  the  two 
countries. 

Now,  the  Presitlent  of  the  United  States,  acting  through  his  Agent  at  Geneva,  can  put 
fnrwiird,  withhold,  or  withtlraw  such  ]u)rtion  of  the  claims  as  he  may  think  proper. 
That  is  iu)t  denied.  Bnt  if  any  of  these  claims  are  contemplated  and  intended  by  the 
Treaty  itself  for  submission,  such  withholding  or  withdrawing  of  them  by  the  President 
alone  is  not  au  extinguishment  tif  them.  Tlio  power  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  is  limited  by  the  Constitution.  He  cannot  of  himself  make  a  treaty  ;  nor  can  ho 
alter,  abridge,  or  depart  from  the  spirit  or  intention  of  a  treaty.  To  do  that  refjuires 
the  assent,  advice,  and  concurrence  of  the  Senate.  H'  the  Treaty  submits  these  claims, 
as  he  is  of  ojiinion  it  ch>arly  does,  to  tlie  consideration  of  the  Tribunal,  then  his  putting 
them  into  the  Case,  or  his  taking  tliem  out  of  the  Case,  does  not  dispose  of  them.  11 
tlu'y  are  withilrawn  by  him,  tliey  are  only  laid  away,  preserved  perhaps  to  be  a  future 
pliigue,  unsettled  ;  kept  as  a  possible  source  of  irritation  ami  complaint.  They  can  he 
extinguished  only  by  some  judgment  of  the  proscribed  Tribunal  ai)poiuted  for  their 
consideration,  or  by  being  given  uj)  through  the  action  of  tlio  whole  treaty-making 
power  exercising  its  constitutional  functions  in  Itehalf  of  the  nation. 

Thus  you  should  clearly  see  the  reascm  why  the  I'resident  nuiy  be  able  to  agree  not 
to  i»rcs8  for  a  money-award  on  (daims  which  he  regards  as  now  before  the  Tribiimil, 
but  to  leave  them  to  be  «lisposed  of  or  commented  on  by  tlie  Arbitrators,  while  ho 
refuses  to  witlulraw  tlu-iii  as  not  being  properly  a  subject  for  their  eonsideiation. 

There  is  objection,  too,  to  the  substance  of  the  pro|iosal  made  in  the  British  note. 
The  engagement,  to  be  of  value  in  tlie  future,  should  be  reciprocal.  The  note  jtro- 
fesses  to  make  it  so;  but  Iu»w  .'  The  otl'er  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  is  to  auree  that 
the  view  which  they  have  heretofore  presented  of  such  indirect  claims  shall  be  their 
principle  of  future  action  and  conduct;  and  that  at  any  time  when  the  United  States 
may  be  a  neutral,  and  Great  Britain  a  belligerent,  she  will  not  advance  any  claims 
incnnsii.tciit  with  that  principle. 

This  is  vagiH' ;  and  yet  it  is  limited  and  narrow. 

It  is  a  vague  undertaking  to  promise  generally  to  adhere  to  a  "  view  "  or  a  "  princi- 
ple," when  there  must  be  a  search  to  ascertain  what  that  view  is,  or  principle  is  ;  and 
it  is  a  narrow  undertaking  which  contiuos  itself  to  an  abnegation  of  the  right  to  pur- 


CORRESPOXDENX'E    EESPECTINCJ    OKXEVA    ARBITRATION.    519 


¥mr 


0  Prehitk'ut. 
an  uiucud(;d 

cti()nal»li>  in 
o  views  iiud 

s  noto  T  will 

loir  proposal 
t,v  of  Wa«h- 
hH«irvan(!«  of 
ml  can'fnlly 
fectivo  mode 

lave  t-lins  far 
the  responisi- 
•».  I  (let'ply 
in  ])resently 
jther  form  of 

lisaj^reenient 
tlie  projKwal 
;  j)roposal,  as 
iilates  for,  or 
■  the  indirect 
sented  to  tiie 
ect  of  award 
ninciplo  that 
lit  right  and 
levitahly  and 
e  of  wliich  it 
aunot  look  at 
iuadmissihle. 
hey  maintain 
ns  forward  in 
f  and  pntting 
it  as  to  their 
aty  that  they 
be  done  only 
weeu  the  two 

nova,  can  pnt 

hink  propter. 

ended  by  tiie 

the  President 

f  the  United 

;  nor  can  he 

that  reqnires 

these  claims, 

n  his  pnttinj; 

of  them.    11 

o  be  a  fntnre 

Tln-y  can  be 

ted  "for  their 

eaty-making 

to  ajjree  not 
the  Tribnnal, 

MS,  while  he 
era t  ion. 

British  note. 
The  note  pro- 
to  auree  that 
ihall  be  their 
Jnited  States 
e  any  claims 


or  a  "  princi- 
eiple  is;  ami 
right  to  pur- 


HHo  certain  specific  classes  of  damages,  when  the  particular  kinds  of  injnry  ont  of 
which  those  damages  may  arise  are  only  to  be  determiruHl  by  comparison.  There  shouhl 
be  general  words  of  description,  and  a  clear  ennneiation  of  ])rii)eiple,  in  any  rule  that 
is  to  serve  as  a  law  of  action,  instead  of  a  reference  only  to  spetnal  cases  that  have  be- 
fore occurred;  because  no  two  cases  can  ever  be  exactly  similar.  A  rule  depending 
for  i^s  applicatiuu  only  on  tests  of  comparison  would  breed  disputes  instead  ot  remov- 
ing tliem. 

A  treaty  stipulation  might  be  made  free  of  all  these  objections. 

Ill  the  first  place  there  could  be  no  question  about  its  mutually  binding  force  ;  and 
in  the  next  place,  being  the  joint  concurroiit  <leclaratiou  of  the  two  parties  to  it,  re- 
duced to  a  single  Ibnn  of  expression,  it  would  have  a  jirecision  not  likely  to  be  found 
in  a  cidlatiou  or  comparison  of  the  several  notes  emiiraced  in  a  diplomatic  corre- 
spondence. 

Great  Britain  has  not  merely  denied  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  put  forward 
the  indirect  claims  beeaiise  she  denies  that  the  Treaty  admits  of  any  construction 
which  will  authorize  their  being  considered  by  the  Tribunal.  She  has  also  taken  the 
alternative  view,  that  if,  by  reason  of  any  ambiguity  in  the  Treaty,  or  any  possible 
interpretation  of  it.  such  claims  tould  be  brought  forward  by  the  United  States,  it  is 
not  to  b(!  supposed  for  a  moment  that  she  ever  intended  to  agree  to  submit  to  arbitra- 
tion demands  upon  h>-r  of  such  character  and  natnn*  that  they  might  be  dangerous  to 
the  very  existence  of  any  nation,  and  make  the  condition  of  a  neutral  possibly  worse 
than  that  of  a  belligerent. 

To  insist  that  the  Treaty  is  so  clear  in  its  terms  as  in  no  sense  to  admit  of  the 
American  interpretation,  in  only  going  back  to  and  begging  the  (piestion  which  has 
been  fruitlessly  discusse<l.  But  if  it  bo  so  clear  in  the  meaning,  then  Great  Britain, 
by  such  a  treaty  stipulation,  yielding  noMiing,  giving  no  consideration,  would  secure 
immunity  tor  the  future  against  a  class  of  claims  which  she  asserts  to  be  always  dan- 
gerous and  improper  to  be  made. 

But,  on  the  otlmr  hand,  if  the  Treaty  does  admit  of  the  American  interpretation, 
Great  Britain  would  obtain  that  immunity  for  the  future  not  only  without  cost  or  sac- 
rifice, but  with  the  additional  advantage  of  escaping  from  an  obligation  into  which,  she 
avers,  in  that  case,  she  was  unwittingly  drawn,  and  which  she  regards  sm  so  danger- 
ous that,  if  it  does  exist,  she  would  rather  repudiate  a  solemn  treaty  than  abide  by 
what  she  has  done. 

What,  then,  is  it  that  Great  Britain  will  gain  if  a  new  article  prescribing  a  rule 
against  claims  for  indirect  damages  be  added  to  the  Treaty  f  She  will  have  the  Treaty 
with  all  it.s  benefits  to  her,  as  it  now  stands,  remain  iutaitt.  She  will  be  relieved  from 
the  responsibility  on  the  one  hand  of  answering  to  any  award  against  her  which  may 
be  made  by  the  Arbitrators  in  case  the  American  interpretation  is  sustained,  and  on 
the  other  from  the  dejilorable  alternative  of  abrogating  her  own  solemn  act.  Ami  she 
will  obtain  formal  and  certain  security  for  the  future  that  she,  is  never  to  be  held  to 
answer  for  <lamages  of  si  kind  which  she  asstats  are  so  dangerous  and  uncertain  that 
they  ought  to  be  resisted. 

Is  she  prepared  to  hold  back  from  an  invitation  to  oiFer  or  concur  in  what  must 
bring  such  results  ? 

What  will  be  the  gain  to  the  United  States  ?  The  settlement  of  a  safe  rule  for  the 
future,  and  the  saving  of  the  advantages  to  their  interests,  which  are  to  bo  found  in 
the  friendly  adjustment  which  was  thought  to  have  been  made  of  all  the  (jnestions 
likely  to  disturb  the  relations  of  the  two  countries,  at  the  cost  of  giving  up  that  por- 
tion of  their  demands  for  past  injuries  which  they  have  been  pressing,  not  with  a  view- 
to  obtaining  pecuniary  compensation,  but  only  in  the  assertion  of  their  right  to  have 
such  an  award  from  the 'I'ribnnal  at  Geneva  as  will  make  the  Treaty  of  Washington 
what  it  was  really  intended  to  be,  a  means  for  wiping  away  forever  from  between  tiieso 
kindred  nations  all  ditferences  and  complaints  as  well  as  all  claims. 


[Fnmi  British  Blue  Book  "  N<nth  America,"  No.  l»,  (l><7>>,)  p.  19.J 

No.  50. 
Sir  E.  Thornton  to  Earl  Granville.^ 

Washington,  May  14,  1872.    (Received  May  2G.) 

My  Lord:  I  have  the  honor  to  iuforin  your  Lordship  that,  during  a 
conversation  which  I  had  late  last  night  witli  Mr.  Fish,  he  said  that  the 
public  was  extremely  anxious  and  intensely  curious  as  to  what  had  lately 


,- 

N,l' 

■i- 

1: 

J$. 

520 


TREATY    OF    WASIIIN<;TON. 


pavssed  between  the  two  Governments  on  tlie  snbject  of  the  indirect 
claiins,  and  tliatlie  tlionglit  it  would  be  admirable  to  take  some  measure 
to  allay  this  impatience.  lie  sngfje.sted  that  it  would  bo  well  either  to 
send  to  Congress  in  open  session,  or  to  publish,  the  four  notes  whieii 
passed  between  your  Lordship  and  (Jeneral  Schenck  on  the  subject  ol' 
claims  for  indirect  damages,  two  telegrams  relative  to  the  presentiitioti  of 
the  British  Counter  Case,  and  a  dispatch  from  General  Schenck  to  Mr. 
Fish,  which  the  latter  read  to  me.  To  the  i>ublication  of  the  three  latter 
there  did  not  seem  to  be  the  slightest  objection,  nor,  as  1  thought,  to  that 
of  the  four  notes.  But  Mr.  Fisli  did  not  seem  satisfied  with  my  oi»inion, 
and  said  that,  as  he  did  not  wish  to  do  anytiiing  which  might  at  all  embar 
rass  Her  Majesty's  Government,  he  would  rather  that  1  would  tel  graph 
your  Lordship  upon  the  subject,  in  the  hope  that  you  would  give  your 
assent  to  the  publication  of  the  above-mentioned  documents. 
1  have,  «&c., 

KDWI).   TIIORXTON. 


[From  British  Blue  Book  "  North  Anierieii,"  No.  9,  (lf^72,)  p.  20.] 

No.  r*i. 

Earl  GranciUe  to  Sir  E,  Thornton. 

Foreign  Office,  May  14, 1872. 
Sir  :  I  asked  General  Schenck  to-day  whether  it  would  not  be  desir- 
able to  draught  the  identic  note,  to  be  addressed  by  the  British  and  Ignited 
States  Agents  to  the  Arbitrators,  communicating  to  them  the  Treaty 
Article  if  it  should  be  concluded. 
General  Schenck  assented  to  this  suggestion. 
1  am,  &c., 

GRANVILLE. 


[From  British  Blue  Book  '<  North  America,"  No.  9,  (187-2,)  p.  20.] 

No.  52. 
Earl  Granville  to  Sir  E.  Thornton. 


Foreign  Office,  May  16, 1872. 

Sir  :  As  you  have  informed  me  by  telegraph  that  the  correspondence 
which  has  passed  between  Her  Majesty's  Government  and  the  Govern 
ment  of  the  United  States,  respecting  the  claims  for  indirect  losses  put 
forward  in  the  Case  presented  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  to  the 
Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  Geneva,  has  been  presented  to  open  Con- 
gress by  Mr.  Fish,  I  have  to  state  to  you  that  the  correspondence  will 
also  be  published  in  a  supplement  to  the  London  Gazette  of  to-morrow, 
together  with  the  dispatch  which  I  addressed  to  you  on  the  13th  instant, 
commenting,  for  your  information,  on  sonie  of  the  historical  parts  of 
Mr.  Fish's  last  dispatch. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTIX(J    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.    521 

I  mentioned  to  General  Schenck  that  this  wonhl  ])robably  be  dop  \ 
You  have  been  informed  of  the  substance  of  this  dispateli  l>y  lele- 
graph. 

I  am,  &.('., 

(IIIANVILLK. 


Pffy 


[From  Miitisli  IJluf  liook  '•  North  AiiMuitu,'  No.  1»,  (Id'a,)  \>.  •-><».] 

No.  .">;{. 

*S7r  /;.  Thornton  to  Karl  OrdnrUle: 
[Extract.] 

Washington,  May  17,  1872.    (Received  3[ay  I'S.) 

T  have  the  honor  to  inclose  a  copy  of  the  New  York  Herald  of  the 
15th  instant,  in  whicli  are  published  copies  of  the  President's  ^Fessage 
to  the  Senate  in  secret  session,  and  of  the  documents  which  accompa- 
nied it.  It  Is  supposed  that  copies  of  these  documents  must,  by  some 
surreptitious  means,  have  been  abstracted  from  the  Senate,  and  it  is 
said  that  the  whole  of  them  were  telegraphed  to  New  York  during  the 
night  of  the  14th  instant,  at  the  expense  of  the  New  York  llerald^ 
winch  published  them  on  tlie  morning  of  the  1  r)Hi  instant. 

Mr.  Fish  was  informed  by  telegrai>li<luring  that  day  that  certain  doc- 
uments had  been  published,  but  could  not  (liscover  whether  the  whole 
of  them  had  a])peared.  He,  however,  at  once  forwarded  to  Congress  in 
open  session  the  four  notes  which  have  passed  between  your  Lordship 
and  General  Schenck  on  the  subject  of  the  claims  for  iiulirect  damages. 

On  the  arrival  here  of  the  New  York  Herald,  it  was  found  that  all 
the  documents  sent  to  the  Senate  on  the  13th  instant,  with  the  exception 
of  the  memorandum  inclosed  in  your  Lordship's  note  of  the  20th  of 
^[arch  last,  had  been  published.  Mr.  Fish  told  me  yesterday  that,  in 
consequence  of  this  publication,  it  was  the  opinion  of  the  President  and 
of  himself,  that  it  would  be  expedient  to  relieve  the  Senate  of  the  in- 
junction of  secrecy  with  regard  to  these  documents,  so  that  they  might 
become  ofticially  public ;  but  that  they  were  indisposed  to  do  so  if  I 
thought  Her  Majesty-s  Government  would  object  to  it.  1  replied  that, 
as  the  documents  had  been  made  i)ublic,  and  as  it  was  evident  that 
they  were  really  copies  of  those  which  had  been  sent  to  the  Senate,  I 
could  see  no  objection  to  tboir  being  ofticially  published,  in  accordance 
with  the  President's  wish  ;  nor  did  I  think  it  worth  while  to  beg  Mr. 
Fish  to  wait  until  I  should  have  telegraphed  to  your  Lordship  and  re- 
ceived an  answer.  But  I  at  the  same  time  strongly  expressed  my  opin- 
ion that  the  discussion  with  regard  to  the  Draft  Treaty  Article  should 
not  be  held  in  oppu  session,  in  favor  of  which  a  motion  had  been  made 
on  the  13th  instant,  but  defeated.  >[r.  Fish  entirely  agreed  with  me 
that  a  public  discussion  would  be  most  inexpedient. 

With  reference  to  the  copy  of  jNlr.  Fish's  telegram  to  General  Schenck 
of  the  27tli  ultimo,  there  is  no  doubt  that,  on  that  day,  it  was  he  who 
suggested  that  your  Lordship  should,  in  answer  to  his  dispatch  to  (ien- 
eral  Schenck,  make  a  proposal  of  the  nature  described  in  my  telegram 
forwarded  on  the  same  day.  The  utmost  that  I  did  was,  on  his  urging 
me  to  give  my  private  opinion  upon  the  suggestion,  to  say  that  1  thought 
it  might,  with  some  modifications,  be  taken  as  the  basis  of  an  arrange- 


^F 


'  Tb«  siibstuiicu  of  tluH  dispatch  was  rcceivrtl  by  telegraph  on  the  J7th  of  May. 


522 


TREATY    OF    WA.SHINiJTON. 


ment;  hut  I  did  not,  and  of  course  coiiM  not,  state,  on  hearing  h\u-Ai  a 
sujigfstion  for  the  first  thne,  that  Her  Majesty's  <iovernnient  wuuhl  or 
\vouhl  not  make  a  proposal  of  the  nature  indicated  hy  Mr.  Fish. 

His  teh'grani  to  (ieneral  Schenck,of  tlio  U7th  ultimo,  was  sent  after  I 
had  received,  and  in  consequence  of,  your  Lordship's  telegram  of  the 
«ame  (hiy,  the  contents  of  which  I  communicated  to  hiiu,  ami  in  whicli 
your  Lordship  stated  that  tiie  apparent  absence  of  instructions  to  the 
American  I^Iinister,  with  whom  tiie  negotiation  was  being  contlucted, 
was  a  great  obstacle  to  an  arrangement. 


[Fioiii  British  Hint!  Hook  "North  AnuMica,"  No.  1),  (l«7!i,)  p. 21.] 

No.  54. 
IJarl  Granville  to  Sir  E.  Thornton. 

FoKEiox  Office,  May  17,  1872. 

Sill :  I  have  received  your  dispatch  of  the  iJOtli  ultimo,  reporting  your 
conversation  with  Mr.  Fish  on  tlie  subject  of  the  indirect  claims;  and, 
in  reply,  1  have  to  acquaint  you  that  Her  Majesty's  (iovernment  approve 
your  guarded  language  on  this  subject,  as  reported  in  your  dispatch. 
I  am,  «!i:c., 

GRANVILLE. 


[From  British  Blue  Book  "North  Ainmicn,"  No.  !),  n-*72,)  p.  21.] 

No.  55. 

Earl  Granville  to  General  Svhcnek. 

Deal,  May  17, 1872. 
Mv  Deau  (Ieneral  ScuENriv:  If  the  Senate  agree  with  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  to  adopt  the  proiH).sed  Treaty  Article,  1  shall 
instruct  Sir  Edward  Thornton  to  sign  it,  in  order  to  save  time. 

I  shall  be  glad  to  have  your  opinion  as  to  how  the  same  object  could 
beobtaiued  with  regard  to  the  notes  communicating  the  Treaty  Article 
to  the  Tribunal  of  Geneva,  of  which  we  agreed  I  had  better  prepare  a 
draft. 

SI'ould  I  remit  it  to  you  or  to  Sir  Edward  Thornton  ? 
Yours,  sincerely, 

GRANVILLE. 


LFroiii  British  Blue  Book  "North  Ainericii,"  No.  9,  (1872,)  p.  21.] 

No.  50. 

General  ^chcnck  to  Earl  Granville. 

[Extract.] 

58  Great  CuMnEiiLAND  Place,  Hyde  Park, 

May  18,  1872.    (Received  May  18.) 

It  ai>pcar8  to  me  that,  when  you  instruct  Sir  Edward  Thornton  in 
regard  to  signing  the  Treaty,  if  it  should  be  concluded,  it  would  be  as 


C0RKi:SI'O\F)i:X('E    UK8PECTIN0    (JENEVA    ARHITRATION.    iViS 

w»>II  to  \ul\^^1  the  joint  note  to  tlio  Arbitrators,  l)rin}j;in;4  it  to  tlieir  notice, 
,si<;neil  at  tlie  same  time  by  him  antl  ^Fr.  Fi.sli. 

If  it  were  not  for  the  greater  convenience,  and  savinj;  of  time  when 
time  may  be  precious,  I  confess  I  should  have  been  ghul  if  you  and  1 
couhl  liave  ]»ut  our  hands  and  seals  to  it  togetlier. 


riYoni  Uritish  IJluc  liook  "  Xoitli  Amerifa,"  No.  D,  (187!i,)  i».  •,''J.J 

>o.  <u. 
Sir  E.  Thornton  to  Earl  (Srnnville^ 


(Extiat't.) 

Washington,  May  IM),  1872.    (Received  .luno  2.) 

On  Sunday  I  (iailed  upon  Mr.  Fish  at  his  own  lionse,  and  having  pre- 
viously heard  that  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  bad  agreed  by 
a  majority  of  4  to  3,  or,  as  some  said,  of  .">  to  2,  upon  its  report  on  the 
Article,  and  had  actually  made  it  to  the  Senate  in  secret  ses8i<?n,  I 
asked  Mr.  Fish  whether  he  could  tell  mo  what  the  amendments  were 
which  had  been  nuule  to  the  Article.  He  replied,  that  he  was  not  in 
possession  of  the  words  of  the  Article,  as  it  had  been  reported  by  the 
Committee  to  the  Senate,  but  would  endeavor  to  describe  them  to  me. 

lie  said  that  the  lirst  i)aragra]>hof  the  Article,  down  to  the  words 
"Great  Britain,"  would  remain  the  same;  but  that,  with  regard  to  the 
next  paragraph,  the  Committee  had  objected  that  Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment had  not  yet  declare«l,  but  was  only  now  going  to  declare,  by 
the  present  article,  that  the  principle  involved  in  the  second  contention 
would  guide  its  conduct  for  the  future. 

The  Committee  also  thought  it  better  that  the  "Government"  should 
be  substituted  for  the  "  President"  in  the  third  paragraph,  and  as  it 
vseemed  to  have  an  objection  to  the  phrase,  "  adhering  to  its  conten- 
tion," it  had  been  proposed  that  it  should  be  altered,  and  that  both 
Governments  should  then  agree  that  their  conduct  in  future,  and  in 
their  relations  with  each  other,  should  be  guided  by  the  above-men- 
tioned principle.  Mr.  Fish  said  that  the  committee  supposed  that 
neither  Government  wished  to  bind  itself  in  this  Article  as  to  its  rela 
tions  with  any  other  Power. 

If  Mr.  Fish's  description  is  correct,  it  would  not  seem  that  any  alter- 
ation has  been  made  in  the  substance  of  the  Draft  Article. 

Your  Lordship  will  have  perceived  that,  in  seiuliug  the  Draft  Article 
to  the  Senate  for  its  advice,  the  President  quoted  the  precedent  of  the 
Treaty  of  184G  on  the  Northwest  Boundary.  If  the  Draft  Article  should 
be  now  approved,  and  if  the  same  precedent  is  still  to  be  followed,  the 
Article  will  have  to  be  signed,  and  again  submitted  to  the  Senate  for  its 
sanction.  This  must  either  bo  done  before  the  29th  instant,  the  day 
now  fixed  for  the  tinal  adjournment  of  the  session,  or  the  President  will 
have  to  summon  an  extraordinary  session  of  the  Senate,  for  the  purpose 
of  submitting  to  it  the  signed  Article. 


'  The  substance  of  this  disitatch  was  rcooivcd  by  telegraph  on  the  20th  of  May. 


■I. 

» (Si 

;    tf;- 

r)24 


TREATY    OF    WASIIINOTOX. 


No.  58. 

.    iicnerul  tSchcncli  to  Mr.  FIhIi. 

No.  230.]  Legation  ov  the  UNiTin)  States, 

Jjondouy  May  L'.j,  1872.     {Received  June  o.) 

Sill :  I  forwanl  lieiewith  copies  of  a  correspondence  wliich  has  taken 
place  between  Lord  (Iranvi  le  and  myself  in  rejjard  to  the  proposed 
identic  notes  to  be  eoniinunicated  to  the  Arbitrators  at  (Jeneva,  in  case 
of  the  new  Treaty  Article  beinjj  adopte<l,  together  with  a  copy  of  J I  is 
Lordship's  ori};inal  draught  of  said  identic  notes  sent  to  me  in  his  letter 
of  the  20th  instant.  ♦ 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

(In  the  absence  of  General  Schenck,) 

BENJAMIN  MOHAN. 


[IiiL'lusnre  1  in  Nii.  5f.) 
Jidrl  (iranrlUv  to  General  Schenvk; 

I'ORKION    Ol'KKK,    Mlllf  20,  1H7'2. 

Sin;  We  afjreo  that  it  mifflit  Rave  time,  in  c.iHe  of  the  Treaty  beinjj  adopted,  if  I 
were  to  i)rei)are  a  form  of  notes  from  1I«t  Majesty's  Govenunent  and  the  (Jovernnieut 
of  the  United  Staten,  eomninuicating  the  Treaty  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at 
Geneva. 

I  therefore  send  you  the  draught  whicli  I  have  prepared. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  hi;(hest  eonwiderution,  sir,  your  most  obedient, 
Luiuble  servant, 

GRANVILLE. 


[Iiii'lomire  2  in  No.  5ei.  ] 
Draught  of  Identic  Note  to  the  Arbitrators. 

The  undersiyned,  Ayent  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  {Agent  of  the  United  States,)  is  in- 
structed by  Her  Majesty's  Government  (the  Government  of  the  United  States)  to  transmit 

to  the  aceompanyinu;  Declaratory  Convention,  concluded  on  between 

Her  Britannic  Majesty  and  tlie  United  States  of  America,  by  which  it  is  provided  that, 
in  consideration  of  the  agreement  therein  set  forth,  the  President  of  the  United  States 
will  make  no  claim  ou  the  part  of  the  United  States  in  respect  of  the  indirect  losses 
stated  in  the  Case  presented  ou  the  part  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to 
the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  on  tbe  l.'Jth  of  Dectjmber,  viz  :  "  The  loss  in  the  transfer 
of  the  American  commercial  marine  to  the  British  flag,  the  enhauced  payments  of  in- 
surance, and  the  additiou  of  a  large  sum  of  the  cost  ot  the  war  and  the  suppression  of 
the  rebellion." 

In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  this  Convention  the  undersigned  has  tlie 
honor,  on  the  part  of  the  Government  which  be  represents,  to  request  that  no  claims 
for  indirect  losses  as  aforesaid  may  be  entertained  by  the  Tribnnal. 


[luclosiire  3  in  No.  58.] 

General  Schenck  to  Lord  Granville. 

Torquay,  May  22,  1872. 
My  Lorp  :  Your  note  of  the  20th,  covering  a  draught  of  a  form  of  note  suggested 
for  communicating  the  new  Treaty  Article,  if  adopted,  to  the  Arbitrators,  was  delivered 
to  Mr.  Morau  last  evening,  and  reached  me  here  this  moruing. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARIJITFtATION.      525 


I  aIdiII  linHton  to  Hiihmit  it  by  tt^litKraph  to  Mr.  l-'iah,  so  that,  if  tint  oecaNioii  coiiioh, 
no  tiiiio  iniiy  lit)  loHt  in  hiivin^  it  rniidy  iih  u^rtuMl  on. 

I  li»vi)  tilt)  buiiur  to  lie,  with  thu  highuttt  couHitlurutiou,  your  Loi'iltthiii'H  moHt  obedi- 
ent ^H;rvunt, 

ROIJERT  C.  SCIIENCK. 


f  From  MritiNh  Kliie  IJook  "North  Aincrita,"  No.  0,  (H7:i,)  p.  liU.] 

No.  51). 

Mr.  Fish  to  General  Schcnck.    {Commiinicnted  hy  Mr.  Moran,  May  25, 

11.45  a.  w.) 

[Tohsgraphic] 

The  Senate  will  undoubtedly  amend  the  proposed  Article.  The  terms 
of  the  note  to  the  Arbitrators  cannot  be  fixed  until  the  language  of  the 
Article  is  agreed  upon. 

FISH. 


[From  Uritish  Blue  Book  "North  America,"  No.  9,  (1872,)  p.  23.] 

No.  GO. 
Earl  Granville  to  Sir  E.  Thornton. 

Foreign  Office,  May  25, 1872—3  p.  m. 

Sir  :  I  have  given  to  the  United  States  Legation  a  copy  of  the  in- 
closed draft  of  preamble  to  a  Treaty,  in  which  the  Article  now  before 
the  Senate  would  be  contained,  supposing  that  the  Article  should  come 
out  from  the  Senate  in  a  form  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  could 
accept. 

You  may  give  it  confidentially  to  Mr.  Fish,  explaining  to  him  that 
the  preaml)le  has  been  framed  with  reference  to  that  contingency  alone, 
and  in  order  to  save  time  in  the  two  Governments  coming  to  an  agree- 
ment on  the  terms  of  preamble  if  this  contingency  should  be  realized. 
I  am,  &c., 

GRANVILLE. 


No.  61. 

Mr.  Fish  to  General  Schcnck: 

[Telegram.  1 

Defartjment  of  State, 
Washington,  May  20,  1872.    (Sent  at  2.30  a.  m.) 

The  President  having  requested  an  expression  by  the  Senate  of  their 
disposition  in  regard  to  advising  and  consenting  to  the  formal  adoption 
of  the  Article  proposed  by  the  British  Government,  as  communicated 
in  your  telegram  of  May  10,  that  body  has  amended  the  proposed 
Article,  and  agrees  to  advise  and  consent  to  its  adoption  in  the  following 
terms : 

Down  to  and  including  the  words  Great  Britain,  the  same  as  in  the 
Article  proposed ;  then  the  following : 

And  whereaa  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has  contended  that  the  said 
claims  were  included  in  the  Treaty  ;  and 


r 


526 


TKKATV    OF    \VAHII1N(;T0N. 


"".vluTciis  )t()(li  (Juvcnniu-iHs  lulopt  for  tli«  fiituro  die  principle  tliiit  diiiins  for  rc- 
;in>t«!  or  i  mil  net  idsst's.slioii'.d  not  be  atlniilliMl  as  the  rcNtilt  of  tail  in  e  to  oh.scrvi'  m-ntral 
oltlij;ationH,  so  far  us  to  (Ifciarc  that  it  will  hereafter  j;iii<lo  the  coiiiliict  of  both  (.iov- 
ernmeiit.s  in  their  relatimis  \vit!i  <'aeh  other:   Now,  th<;refore, 

III  e<iiiHi<le:ation  thereof,  the  I'rehidentof  the  L'nite'l  .States,  by  and  with  the  adviec 
and  <-(in.setit  (.f  tiio  S(^nate  thereof,  eonst-nts  tiiat  he  will  make  no  claim  on  the  [lart  oC 
tlie  I'luted  States,  iu  resitect  o'  indiree^  losweh  as  aforesaid,  before  the  Tribunal  of 
Arbitration  at  (ieiieva. 

Yon  will,  withoiit  del.iy,  itdbrm  Lord  Granville  that,  in  pursuance  of 
this  ju'tioM  ofllio  Senat<».  the  l're.si(l<Mit:  will  np<,'otiate  a  new  Article  in 
*the  tevnis  and  to  the  effect  of  the  Jorep;oiii}j.  You  will  also  r.ay  to  him 
that  the  two  Houses  of  ('onj;ress  have  passed  a  concurrent  rf>sol'uion  fo 
adjourn  xinc  din  on  the  2!>rh  instant,  and  that  a  treaty  embodying  the 
Article  must  l>e  i>resented  to  the  Senate  and  receive  its  approval.  It  is 
important,  therefore,  that  authority  oe  siieedily  {j'^en  to  Her  Majesty's 
]\Iinist«>r  here  to  sij^ii  the  convention,  U'  the  Jiritish  Government  con- 
(jlutles  to  enter  into  the  a<jcreement. 

A  copy  of  the  Article'  has  been  furnished  to  Sir  Etiward  Thornton. 

'  The  dilfiMKiicea  between  the  Article  siifjjiested  by  Great  Uritain,  snbniitted  to  the 
Senatt^  May  K',  am'  the  article  adopted  by  the,  .Senate  Jlay  '-i'),  are  shown  in  parallel 
colnmn.H  below.  The  left-hand  (tobinin  f^ivcH  tlu'  text  proposed  by  Great  iirituiu;  the 
ri}rht-hand  column  shows  tlie  alterations  niaile  by  the  .Senate; 

Vlieieas  the  (ioveinnieiit  of  llcr  Hritaii- 
nie  Majesty  has  conteiidf'd  •  .1  tht^ecent  <:i)i'- 
resjiondenct!  with   the  (Jovernment    of  tlit! 

United    .Stall's    as    follows,    naiiely :    That  * 

sneh  indirect  claims  as  those  for  tlie  na- 
tional losses  statt)d  in  the  Case  presented, 
Oil  (he  part  of  the  (<ovenii!n'nt  of  the 
United  .Stiitcs,  1(1  the  Tnbiinal  ef  Arbitral  ion 
lit  t'  vieva,  lo  have  been  sustained  by  th.5 
loss  in  the  transfer  of  the  Aineriean  eoni- 
niereial  marine  to  the  BriliHlilliiK;  the  cn- 
liaiiced  payments  >>{  insurance  ;  the  ]iro- 
lon^^alion  ol  the  war,  and  the  addition  of  a 
larj^e  .■tnm  ♦'■  the  cost  of  the  war  and  the 
snppre ■■,ion  of  the  rebellimi — Firstly,  wen; 
not  incdmi"d  in  the  Treaty  '..f  Wasliinj^fon, 
and  further,  and  seemidly,  should  not  be 
iulmitted  in  principle  as  }.;i'owinj;  out  (d' the 
actH  commilted  by  parlienlar  vtss«  Is,  al- 
lejjed  to  have  been  enabliMl  to  commit  di - 
jiredatiims  upon  the  shippm^j  af  a  bdliirt.- 
reiit,  by  icaMHi  of  smh  want  nf  due  dili- 
j;enee  in  the  perfornianci'  of  the  neutral 
<d»lij;ati<>ns  as  that  which  's  imputed  liy  the 
United  St  ites  to  (Jr'-at  I5iitaiii ;  iind 

Wiierea.s  the  (iovernmei.t  of  Her  IJrilan- ) 
iiic  .\!:!Jesiv  has  also  diel.iitd  that  the  prin-  | 
ciple  involved  in  the  se  •ond  of  the  contei 


Whereas  the  (iovernment  of  the  UnitcM'. 
lions,    hereiiibclore    set    forth,    nill   ^iiide  1  States  has  eoiileiided  that  (he  said  claiii!"- 


their  coiidnct  I'l  fittiiie;  and 


w« 


I     I'icliidi .'  in  the  Treaty  ;  and 


Wiieri'as  the  Vresideiit  of  llie  I'liited  I  \\  '\erea.:  both  (Joveninienta  adopt  for 
States,  whilst  adberinjr  to  his  content  ion  [tlie  fi.tnro  the  p-iiieiple  that  claims  for 
that  tlie  said  claims  were  inclmb'd   in   the 


'''ri'aly,  adojits  for  the  future  th(<  principle 
contiiiiu-d  in  die  second  i>f  the  said  conten- 
tions, so  lar  us  t.  declare  Unit  it  will  here- 
uflrr  ;;nidt.'  1l;i.  conduct  of  the  (io\ernment 


remote  or   indirect   losses  sh  >  .Id  not  be 
ad'oitted  as  ther'-Hnltof  failiuc,  toobbcrve 
neutral  obli^rations,  so  far  as  to  deehir 
that  it  will   hereafter  ),{uide  the  condticl 
of  both  (Jovernincnts  in   their  rolutiou!* 


»f  the  t'liitc  1  .States,  and  the  two  countries  |  with  each  other  :  Xow,  therefore, 
are  therefor.'  ajireed  in  this  respect.  I 

In  considiralion  thereof,  the  I'yesideiit  of 
the  L'liiled  Slates,  by  and  with  the  advice 
Btid  '..osiseiil  of  the  .Senate  tliereof,  consents 
that  lie  \\\\\  make  no  claim  on  the  part  of 
the  United  States,  in  re<pect  of  indirect 
losscH  as  aforesaid,  before  the  'I'libitnal  of 
Arbitrat'.iin  at  (Jencxa. 


CORRESPOXDKVCK    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARUITRATION.      527 

[From  British  filiu    i«<>(>k  "  North  Anierioa"  No.  l>,  (187'2,)  p. '^'i.] 

No.  02. 
Sir  E.   ThnrnUm  to  Earl  aranrillc.^ 

"WASiiiNtJTON,  Ufay  L*7,  1.S72.     (Received  .fmie  S.) 

My  Loud  :  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  copy  of  a  note,  dated  the  L'oth 
instant,  from  Mr.  Fish,  and  its  inch)sure,  which  I  received  yesterday  at 
half  i>ast  I  p.  ni.  It  trarsniits  copy  of  a  resohition  of  the  Senate,  wliich 
\vi;8  aj^reed  to  at  half  past  8  p.  ni.  of  the  L'.ith  instant,  and  which  recom- 
mends to  the  PresithMit  the  iiej^rotiation  with  the  British  Government  «»f 
an  Article  snj>plementary  to  the  Treaty  of  Washington  of  May  S,  lS7i, 
to  be  ratilied  afterward  b^'  the  Senate  in  the  terms  ihereinalter  men- 
tioned. 

Mr.  Fish  had,  dnrii;j?  the  night  of  the  L'5th  instant,  oiven  me  what  Im 
believed  to  be  the  words  of  the  Artiide  as  adopted  by  the  Senat*',  but 
he  could  not  jjuarantee  their  being  cor'cct.  I  thought  it  ''<»st,  however, 
to  telegraph  tliem  at  once,  though  conditionally,  to  your  ordship,  and 
they  afterward  turned  out  to  be  the  exact  words  adojH  mI  by  tlie 
Senate. 

Your  Lordship  is  aware  that  the  whole  of  the  discussior  has  be«'n 
carried  on  in  secret  session,  and  as  much  annoyam-e  was  felt  at  the 
unauthorized  publication  by  the  New  York  Herald  of  the  <ronlidential 
documents  which  had  been  sent  to  the  Senate  on  the  L'5th  instant, 
Senators  have  been  generally  extremely  reticent  as  to  what  has  [»assed 
in  the  secret  sessions. 

From  the  best  information,  however,  which  I  can  obtain,  T  should 
imagine  that  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Kelations,  by  ji  vote  of  <»  to  1, 
agreed  to  report  an  Article  very  nearly  in  the  words  in  whi(.'h  it  has  been 
iinally  adopted  by  the  Senate.  It  was  reported  to  the  Senate  on  the 
22d  instant,  and  wasdiscusvsed  on  that  and  the  three  tbilowing  tlays  for 
several  hours;  the  session  on  the  24th  instant  lasted  for  eight  hours, 
tiuishing  at  llA-i  p.  m.  The  majority  by  which  the  inclosed  resolution 
Avas  passed,  has  been  variously  state<l,  but  I  am  inclined  t«)  think  that 
the  numbers  were  l.'i  t )  S.  it  is  said  that  several  Senators  were  absent, 
and  that  some  of  those  who  were  present  refrained  Irom  voting. 
I  have,  &c., 

ED  WD.  TllOliXTON. 


I  Iniliisiirc   1  ill  Nil.  tiU.l 
Mr.   /'(>7i   to  Sir  /■.'.   'I'hiinitoii. 

Dl.l'.MMMIN  I     Ol     Si  VI  K, 

liaxhi Ill/ton,  Moil  "i*"),  11*72. 
Siu  :  I  have  tin'  honor  to  iiulosc  a  fopy  of  a  fcsoliitioii  of  the  Sciiiifc  of  tln«  I'liitrd 
States,  fxpicssinii  li^i  \\!ilin<i;in'Hs  to  u.l\  i-*t'  ami   <'cmsi'nt    to   the  a(li)|itioii  ol  a  siipplo- 
lUftital  Aitii  Ic  to  till'  'tnaty  ot  Wasiiinntoii  of  May  ■''.  1"^71. 
1  lia\<',  tSiC, 

HAMILTON  FISH. 


[For  iiiclosuio2  in  No,  <J2,  hi'J!  p.  UW.] 


Tho  HiibstAiict!  of  this  <ii!«j)!ttoli  \vu»  lecf ive«l  by  teU-gruith  on  the  *i7tli  of  May. 


528 


TREATY    OF    WAblIIN(iTON. 

No.  03. 
Mr.  Filth  io  General  ISchenck. 


No.  213.] 


Department  of  Statf, 

Waxkington,  May  U8,  1872. 

Sir:  I  have  to  ackiio\vl(Ml<;o  the  receipt  of  yonr  dispatch  of  the  14tli 
instant,  No.  2_'."»,  lehitinj^  to  the  proposed  new  Article  to  the  Treaty  of 
May  8,  1871,  and  tiie  Meniorandnni  wliich  accompanie«l  it.    That  iSIenj 
oranduin  is  a  very  able  and  comprehensive  review  of  the  case,  and  pre- 
sents the  position  of  tlie  United  States^  in  the  main,  very  fully. 

The  object  of  the  United  States  in  insisting  on  retaining  the  indirect 
claims  before  the  Tribunal  was: 

J.  Tlie  right  under  the  treaty  to  ])resent  them. 

]I.  To  have  them  <lisposed  of  anil  removed  from  further  controversy. 

II [.  To  obtain  a  decision  either  for  or  against  the  liability  of  a  neutral 
for  claims  of  that  description. 

IV.  If  the  liability  of  a  neutral  for  such  claims  is  admitted  in  tin; 
future,  then  to  insist  on  paymen*  by  (Ireat  Britain  for  those  of  the  past. 

V.  Having  a  case  against  Great  IJritain,  to  have  the  same  principle 
api)lied  to  it  that  may  in  the  future  be  invoked  a'jainst  the  United 
►Stales. 

I  am,  &c., 

HAMILTON  FISH. 


No.  (J4. 
Oeneral  Schenel'  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[Tt'h'gram.] 

London,  May  28,  1872.     (Received  at  1.15  a.  ni.) 

I  commnni(;ited  your  telegram  of  yesterday  to  Lord  (rrauville.  He 
submitted  it  to  theC'abinet,  who  took  it  under  long  consideration.  Mo 
has  Jiist  given  me  their  answer.     It  is  as  follows: 

UtT  Miiji'sty's  (i.>\  t'rmniMit  arc  i»f  opinion  tliiit  lln'  ilrlinitioii  hy  tln>  S'iiuitt^  of  tlio 
pi'inci|)li-  wliirli  liotli  (iovcrnnifiits  arc  iirrpmril  to  adopt  lor  tlic  (iitiiri'  is  so  \  a^jiiu  that 
it  is  iin|iossililt>  to  state  to  w  hat  it  is  or  is  not  a,i|iiii'alilf,  and  tlicy  lu'lit-vt^  tiiat  it  would 
only  lead  to  Cntiirc  niisundi'istaiidiiiy;s.  'I'iicy  prcfiT  tin-  ai'tirlc  as  tiicy  had  <b'an;;lilcd 
it,  hut  iiavc  no  ol)jr(tion  toarccpt  the  articlo  in  the  form  pioposed  hy  the  .Senate,  witii 
the  MubstKntion  of  tlie  words  '•  of  a  like  nature,"  for  the  words  ''  f  tr  remote  or  indirect 
losses,"  and  the  suhst  itntion  of  the  words  "such  wantof  dm-  diligenin'  on  the  part  of  a 
HDiitral,"  tor  the  words  "the  failure  to  oliserve  neutral  id)li;{iitions." 

In  reply  to  my  inquiry  of  Lord  (Iraiiville,  whether  any  j)ossible  inter- 
pn^tation  of  the  form  proposed  l>y  tlie  Semite  would  be  held  by  them 
to  prevent  taking  before  the  Arl)itrators,  to  be  (ioiisidered  by  them  in 
making  their  award,  that  part  of  the  claims  which  relates  to  the  cost  of 
pursuit  and  enptiire  of  eruiseiv.,  he  states  that  h(>  must  on  behalf  of  Her 
Majesty's  (Toveriimeiit  decline  to  answer  my  (piestioti  as  to  the  ett'ect  of 
the  Arti«rle  as  alt«?re<l  by  the  Neinitc,  or  to  state  what  possible  construe! 
tion  it  may  bear.  Lord  (Iranville  says  he  has  informed  Sir  Edward 
TlKU'iiton  that  he  may  tell  you  IL-r  .M,i,<'sty's  (iDvernineut  will  not  insist 
on  the  words  you  tlesire  to  omit  fnun  the  preamble  if  you  will  give 
assurance  in  writing  that  the  United  States  will  iigree  to  the  form  of 
note  he  proposed  coiiimunicating  the  Convention  on  the  part  of  the  two 


1»TtF^ 


CORRESPON'DEXCE  RESPECTING  GENEVA  ARBITRATION.   529 

Ooveriiments  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration.  Lord  Granville  tella  me 
confidentially  that  Thornton  informed  him  you  had  stated  that  the  Com- 
mittee on  Foreign  Affairs  was  ready  to  recommend  the  following  form  : 

And  whereas  the  Government  of  tlio  Uniteil  States  contend  that  the  said  chiiins 
were  inclutled  in  the  Treaty,  now  the  two  Governments  ajitroe  tliat  the  principle  in- 
volved in  the  second  of  the  contentions  hereinl)ef()re  set  fortli  by  Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment will  guide  their  conduct  in  future  in  their  relations  with  each  other. 

Which  proposal  he  says  they  were  prepared  to  adopt. 

SCHENCK. 


No.  65. 


^[r.  Fish  to  (hneml  Schcnck. 
[Teleyram.] 

Washington,  Maj/  28,  187:-'. 

This  (lovernment  declines  to  agree  to  the  proposed  altering  of  the 
supplementary  Article.  The  establishment  of  the  i)rinciple  embodied 
tiierein  has  been  its  object  in  adhering  to  the  presentation  of  the  indi- 
rect claims,  and  its  recognition  is  tlie  inducement  for  not  pressing  them 
before  the  Tribunal. 

FISH. 


No.  60. 


General  Hehenck  to  Mr.  Finh. 

[Telegram.] 
London,  May  28,  1872.     (Received  IMay  20,  7.30  a.  m.) 

Lord  ( Iranville  has  to-night,  after  anoth«'r  (Jabinet,  .sent  me  the  follow- 
ing further  communication : 

\_Earl  drauv'ilh'  to  (tttimil  Siliciirk.] 

I  think  it  desirable  at  once  to  address  to  you  the  following  olisi.-rviitions  in  addition 
to  what  is  statt!d  in  my  letter  of  yesterday.     Hit   Majesty's  ( Joverniiient  proposed  an 
Article  on  the  suggestion  of  the  Aiuerican  (iovcrmuent ;  that  Article  has  been  annMuled 
liat  it  would      H  i,y  f  j„>  .Senate.     Her  Majesty's  Gov«'rnnient  are  not  al»le  to  liinl  for  it.  as  amended,  any 
|l  draughltil      ^  iiieans  or  standard  of  interpretation;  the  words  apixar  to  iurlnde  tiie  willful  niiseon- 
ihict  of  a  neutral,  an  well  i\>*  ;i   failure  from  want  of  dm;  diligence.     'J'hey  cannot  snp- 
or  iudirri'l      _  ^ofio  this  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  American  <i<iv<inment.     Her  Majesty's  Governm<>nt 
hold  all  the  claims  made  by  the  United  States  for  losses  whieli  were  the  direct  results 
of  the  acts  of  vessels  mentioned  in  the  Treaty,  to  be  claims  ibr  indire<!t  losses  as  the 
iisult  of  the  failure  to  observe  otntral  oi)ligations.     Hur  Majtisty's  Government  liold 
many  of  tlii'  claims  for  the  losses  above  irentiouiMl  to  be  » laiins  for  losses  which  are 
remote  an  well  as  indirect,  while  resultiing  from  a  failuro  to  observe  neutral  obliga- 
tions.    Her  Majesty's  GovernuuMit  are  unabi*  to  signify  ai   assent  to  a  form  of  Article 
of  whicli  they  cannot  for  themselves  discover  the  scope,  lud  with  respect  to  whi<;h, 
owing,  probably,  to  the  dilticulty  of  telegraphic  commuiiication.  they  have  not  been 
.11  prised  of  the  meaning  which  the  Auuuican  (fovcrnuient  attaches  to  it,  or  of  the 
re.isons  which  have*  led  to  its  bi'ing  proposed.     If  the  (jovi.runuMit  of  the  United  Btattis 
ilniik  it  desirable  to  give  the  information  which   Ht>r  Mi\j  -sty's  <iovernment  wish  to 
loc-ive  on  these  points,  and  also  think  that  for  that  pnrpo^.e  smne  adjournment  of  the 
time  of  nmeting  of  the  Arbitrators  at  Gem>va  should  taki    place,  Her  Majesty's  (Jov- 
trument  would  be  ready  to  agree  to  au,v  suitable  proposal  lor  that  pur|)ose,  which  they 
|ircsume  could  only  be  iloue  by  a  short  treaty  between  the  two  Governments. 

SCUENCK. 
34  A— II 


530 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 

No.  67. 
Mr.  Fish  to  General  Schencl: 

[Kxtraet.l 


No.  214.J 


Department  op  State, 

Washington,  May  28,  1872. 

Sir:  Late  last  eveniiiff  Sir  Edward  Thornton  called  at  my  house: 
havinj;,  as  ho  stated,  a  telegram  from  Lord  Granville,  the  general  pur 
l)ort  of  which  he  mentioned,  to  the  ett'ect  that  the  British  Government 
Laving  received  the  amendment  proposed  by  this  Government  to  their 
proposed  supplemental  Article,  would  prefer  their  own  draught,  but  that 
they  would  accept  the  proposed  alteration,  substituting,  however,  for  the 
words  "for  remote  or  indirect  losses,"  the  words  "  of  a  like  nature,"  and 
for  the  words  "  failure  to  observe  neutral  obligations,"  the  words  "  such 
■want  of  due  diligence  on  the  part  of  a  neutral." 

I  told  him  frankly,  and  earnestly,  tli.at  no  change  or  alteration  of  any 
kind  is  admissible  or  can  be  entertained.  I  added  thtit  the  United 
States  now  have  a  case  against  Great  ]iritain,  he  interrupting  me  by 
saying,  "  the  United  States  thinJc  they  now  have  a  case."  1  proceeded, 
saying ;  that  it  made  no  ditterence,  that  having  now  a  case,  they  desire 
to  x)ress  it  for  a  decision,  or  to  have  the  i)rinciple  of  exemption  ot 
national  liability  for  indirect  losses  established  for  the  future ;  that  that 
principle  is  the  ecpiivalent  or  consideration  of  abstaining  from  a  demand 
before  the  Tribunal  for  damages  on  account  of  the  indirect  losses  ;  that 
as  now  altered,  the  Article  prevents  the  presentation  of  indirect  claims 
against  the  United  States,on  account  of  the  Fenian  raid8,while  the  British 
draught  would  exclude  only  claims  arising  from  the  acts  of  vessels,  &e., 
and  UTw'.cr  circumstances  which  may  possil>ly  never  again  occur.    *     * 

lie  then  asked  me  about  the  preamble  and  the  propose«l  note  to  the 
Arbitrators.  In  reply,  1  told  him  that  it  was  useless  to  discuss  cither 
while  his  Government  is  contemplating  any  change  in  the  Article. 

lie  said  it  might  be  well  to  have  an  understanding,  in  order  to  save 
time  in  case  his  Government  accept  the  alterations  ma«le  to  the  Article. 

In  this  view, I  showed  him  a  draught  otai»reamble  which  had  been  pn  • 
parod  in  the  Department,  reciting,  simply,  that  the  two  Governments, 
deeming  it  advisable  that  "  there  should  be  an  additional  Article  to  the 
Treaty  signed  at  Washington  on  the  8th  day  of  May,  1871,  have  for  that 
purpose  named  as  their  IMenipotentiaries,"&c.,and  saying  that  I  seei»o 
occassion  for  any  other  recital ;  and  that  as  to  the  propose*!  note  we  will 
not  sign  it.     He  ask  if  there  was  any  ob)e<'tion  to  their  signing  sucli 
note,  to  whicii  i  replied  that  we  couhl  not  control  them  in  that  respect : 
they  had  the  poweitomake  such  represcntatitnisto  the  Tiibunal  as  tin  ^ 
thought  proi)er ;  that  there  might  be  no  objection  on  our  part  to  tin 
former  part  of  the  proposed  note,  but  that  the  latter  clause  was  not 
necessary,  as  the  ellect  of  the  Article  aceomplished  what  was  then  statetl 
as  a  r(!quest ;  that  we  wouhl  lay  the  Tivaty,  if  agreed  to,  befoiv  tli 
Tribunal,  and  our  counsel  woul<l  be  guided  l»v  it,  and  w«)nld  abstii  ' 
from  making  any  claim  oh  account  of  tlie  indirrc-r  lossi-ss  ;  but  I  desire. 
not  to  be  committed  in  ulvance  of  the  agrjHtue't  to  'lie  Article. 

1  then  referre*!  to  the  question  raised  by  your  telegiam,  rtH?eiv#^ 
terday,  as  to  the  etfect  ot  the  Article  upon  tlie  ehtim  tor  evpeTts*-  of  pe.; 
suit  of  the  crnisei's,  a?id  julded  that  1  did  .lot  think  there  <'<»akl  in-  any 
doubt,  as  both   Governments  lia«l,  through  the  whole  ('orT»^«»n«ien('e. 
treated  this  as  a  dirtct  claim.     ^^  itii  soine  reserve  ant'  cjui.iou,  a•nddi^ 


L»8,  1872. 
my  house; 
ineral  pur 
overuuient 
nt  to  tbeir 
lit,  but  that 
ver,  lor  the 
iture,"  and 
ards  "  such 

itiou  of  any 
the  United 
ting  me  by 
proeeedcd, 
they  desire 
:emptiou  ot 
e;  that  that 
in  a  demand 
losses ;  that 
lirect  ehiinis 
le  the  British 
vessels,  &c., 
ccur.    *     * 
note  to  the 
iseuss  either 
Article, 
rder  to  save 
)  the  Article, 
lad  been  prt - 
overnnuMits, 
.rticle  to  the 
lave  for  that 
that  I  see  no 
note  we  will 
^ityiiiuj;  sucb 
lat  respect  : 
unal  asthc^ 
part  to  th. 
use  was  not 
s  then  stated 
>,  bi'foiv  til 
tuUl  absta  t\ 
)ut  I  desire- 
tide. 

IVCI'IVlHt 

uris.   »>tpe>: 

'^>ep''en»'». 
*.u,  anddi> 


CORRESPONDKNCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.      531 

claiming  any  authority  to  speak,  ho  remarked  that  he  believed  that 
claim  had  been  created  as  a  direct  claim  ;  one  on  which  the  Tribui."' 
Avas  to  pass,  and  decide  whether  or  not  it  be  one  for  which  compensa- 
tion is  to  bo  made. 

I  am  this  morning  in  the  receipt  of  your  telegram  communicating 
the  proposed  changes  to  the  Article  which  Sir  I^dward  Thornton  ha«l 
communicated  to  me,  as  above  mentioned. 

Lord  Granville's  evasion  of  a  rci)ly  to  your  question  respecting  the 
pursuit,  &c.,  of  the  cruisers,  is  significant  and  suggestive  of  caution. 

It  is  verj-  possible  that  the  whole  thing  will  fail ;  if  so,  this  country 
will  stand  before  the  world  having  done  all  that  it  could  to  maintain 
the  Treaty,  and  the  civilizing  principle  which  it  established.  The  respon- 
sibility of  failure  must  rest  with  Great  Britain,  who  evidently  w  ill  have 
shown  a  reserved  intent,  and  an  object  of  future  advantage  not  avowed. 
*  *  *  ]Much  as  this  Government  will  regret  the  failure,  it  can  stand 
it  as  well  as  can  Great  Britain. 

There  are  some  things  in  the  telegram  received  this  morning  which 
may  require  comment;  but  I  incline  to  hope  that  what  may  seem  arro- 
gant in  Lord  Granville's  remark,  that  he  wdl  not  insist  on  certain 
language  in  the  proposed  preamble,  arises  from  the  constraint  of  the 
telegraphic  form  of  coijimunication ;  and  so,  too,  the  suggestion  of  a  con- 
dition that  assurance  be  given,  in  writing,  of  certain  things. 

As  presented  in  your  telegrani,  these  observations  appear  such  as  [ 
am  confident  you  would  not  have  listened  to,  without  repelling  them. 
1  confidently  hope  that  their  unpleasant  apptuirance  is  to  be  attributed 
to  the  style  of  telegraphic  correspondence. 

t^ir  Edward  Thornton  was  told  by  me,  some  days  since,  what  I  under- 
stood would  probably  bo  the  expected  change  recommended  by  the 
Senate  committee,  lie  has  made  some  mistakes  in  transuiitting  it.  I 
gave  him  no  copy  ;  he  must  have  rei)orted  it  from  memory.  But  what- 
ever it  was,  it  was  a  thing  under  consideration,  and  the  committee's 
report  was  changed  by  the  Senate.  I  see,  therefore,  no  importance  to 
be  attached  to  a  variance  in  the  final  action  of  the  Senate  from  what 
was  at  one  time  expected  ;  although  what  was  expected  isditierent  from 
what  Lord  Granville  has  understood  to  have  been  expected. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

HAMILTON  FISH. 


m 


[From  Uiitisli  Hhie  R  n)k  "  Noitli  Anu>rica,"  No.  !•,  iV'*7i,)  -..  -^7.] 

No.  (5S. 

Sir  K.  Thornton  to  Karl  aronriUcJ 

[Extract.] 

WAsniN(rT(tN,  May  I'.S,  1.S72.     (lieceived  June  8.) 
With  regard  to  the  alterations  which  Ilcr  Miijesty's  Governniont  de- 
sires should  be  made  in  the  supplementary  Article  as  re(!ommended  by 
the  recent  decision  of  the  Senate,  Mr.  Fish  said  that  it  was  out  of  the 
power  of  the  United  States  Government  to  accede  to  them,  or  indeed  to 

'  Tlu>  substance  of  this  diitputcli  was  received  by  telcgruitb  uu  tUu  'i-rtb  uf  Muj . 


532 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON. 


any  chaiijje  of  tbe  words,  as  they  bad  been  decided  upon  by  the  Senate. 
He  informed  me  tbat  be  bad  himself  bad  a  long  discussion  with  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Eelations  of  the  Senate  upon  the  subject,  and 
tbat  he  was  convinced,  from  the  nature  of  tbat  discussion,  that  it  would 
bo  in  vain  to  submit  to  the  Senate  the  alterations  now  transmitted  by 
your  Lordship ;  for  tbat  it  bad  been  expressly  intended  by  tbe  Commit- 
tee that  the  principle  sljould  be  enlarged,  and  tbat  the  non-admittance 
of  indirect  claims  should  be  extended  to  all  such  claims,  and  should  not 
be  limited  to  those  of  that  particular  class  which  were  specified  iu  the 
contention  of  Her  Majesty's  Government. 

These  views  of  the  Committee  had  been  fully  sui)ported  by  the  Sen- 
ate, who  considered  tbat  tbe  adoption  of  tbe  wider  principle  with  regard 
to  indirect  claims  would  be  au  equivalent  for  the  consent  given  by  tbe 
I'resident  that  be  would  make  no  claim  for  indirect  losses  before  tbe 
Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  Geneva.  He  was  convinced,  from  bis  knowl- 
edge of  the  feelings  of  the  Senate  upon  the  subject,  that  any  further 
appeal  to  that  body  would  have  no  ettect  whatever. 

From  a  great  deal  that  I  have  heard  from  other  quarters,  and  from 
tbe  extreme  difficulty  with  which  tbe  sanction  of  tbe  Senate  has  been 
obtained  to  the  supplementary  Article,  even  as  modified  by  it,  1  can- 
not but  ac(|uiesce  in  Mr.  Fish's  opinion  that  any  further  reference  to 
the  Senate  would  be  of  no  avail. 


[Froui  British  Uhw  Hook  "North  America,"  No.  [),  (l.«7>,)  p.  W.] 

No.  69. 
Earl  Grani'iUc  to  Sir  E.  Thornton. 


Sik: 


FoRT^lGN  OFFirE,  May  28,  1872. 

I  asketl  General  Schcnck  to-day  vviiether  he  had  received  any 
instructions  from  bis  (loverniiient  to  inform  her  Majesty's  Government 
of  what  was  the  scope  and  cvtt'ut  of  tbe  i)rinciple  which  is  proposed  by 
them  to  us  in  the  draugiit  Article  which  b;is  been  recommended  by  the 
Senate. 

He  ariswiTcd  that  be  had  received  none  e.\(!eptiiig  those  which  were 
contained  iu  the  several  telt'grams  which  have  been  comnuuiicated  to 
Her  Majesty's  Government,  and  lie  added  that  the  general  principle 
could  only  bo  laid  down  and  the  interpretation  made  when  cases  arise. 

He  referred  me  again  for  explanation  of  the  position  taken  by  the 
United  States,  includinjj  tlu'ir  view  in  relation  to  the  necessity  of  a 
general  rule  with  regard  to  indirect  damnges,  to  the  remarks  which  he 
made  to  me  and  retluced  to  writing,  and  of  which  he  furnished  me  a 
copy  on  the  10th  of  May.  lie  added  that  the  Article  as  [)assed  by  the 
Senate  was  connected  with  what  he  had  tiierein  statetl. 

1  replied  that  I  bad  no  recollection  of  anything  which  he  had  written 
on  the  lOth  of  May,  <b'tining  in  any  degree  the  seope  or  extent  of  such 
an  Article  as  was  now  i)roposed. 

Our  conversation  was  interrupted  by  tbe  necessity  of  nay  attending  a 
Cabinet. 

1  am.  &c., 

GRANMLLE. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.      533 


No.  70. 
^fr.  Fish  to  (icneml  Svhencl: 

[TelfKiMii.— Kxfrart.] 

AVASiriN(JTON,  May  21),  1872. 

Your  telejifram  of  last  night  receivetl  this  raorning.  We  cannot  under- 
stand the  oV»iections  which  Lord  Granville  raises.  Jle  raises  new  issues, 
but  suggests  nothing  in  the  direction  of  an  agreement.  Criticism  and 
objection  without  suggestions  lead  to  no  results,  and  do  not  give 
assur.ance  of  a  desire  to  harmonize  ditlering  views. 

You  have  informally  suggested  various  nio«les  of  agreement,  but 
Great  liritain  has  met  all  with  the  demand  to  w  ithdraw  claims  which 
we  feel  we  were  justitied  under  the  Treaty  in  presenting,  while  the  obli- 
gations which  Great  liritaiu  has  in  various  forms  proffered  on  her  part 
have  all  been  substantially  the  same,  and  have  been  vagne,  uncertain, 
ideal,  and  not  likely  ever  to  become  available. 

The  Article  proposed  by  the  Senate  is  fair,  candid,  and  reciprocal. 
This  Government  has  endeavored  to  express  its  views,  objects,  and 
meaning  with  respect  to  the  i)rinciple  embodied  therein  in  tlie  cor- 
respondence wiiich  has  taken  i)lace,  and  in  the  communications  which 
you  have  had  with  ]Ier  Mf.Jesty'a  Minister  of  Foreign  Atfairs. 

As  the  proposed  Article,  if  it  is  to  become  a  Treaty,  must  be  siguetl 
and  be  submitted  to  the  Senate  for  approval,  but  two  days  remain 
within  which  that  approval  can  be  had,  and  the  Treaty  forwarded  to 
London  to  emible  the  ratilications  to  be  exch.anged  in  time  to  be  pre- 
sentetl  to  the  Arbitrators  at  their  meeting  in  June. 

Further  explanations  of  the  views  of  the  Government  seem,  therefore, 
impossible  to  bo  interchanged  between  here  aiul  Lon<lon  ;  but  you  may 
be  able  to  explain  these  views  as  they  have  been  communicated  to  you 
from  this  Department. 

The  President  is  extremely  anxious  to  preserve  a  Treaty  enibodying 
and  giving  practical  application  to  the  doctrine  of  arbitration  us  a  mode 
of  settling  international  differences,  and  for  that  end  has  be<Mi  willing 
to  make  large  concessions. 

You  will  call  the  attention  of  Fler  ^fajesty's  .Minister  to  the  fact  that 
unless  the  Treaty  be  signed  and  approved  by  the  SiiKite,  so  that  the 
I'resident's  ratilication  can  leave  here  the  day  after  to-morrow  and  go 
by  Saturday's  steamer,  't  cannot  reach  London  in  time  to  he  there  ex- 
changeil,  and  be  [uesented  to  the  Arbitrators  at  their  nu'etiiig  on  l.'ith 
June. 

The  suggestion  of  another  treaty  to  adjourn  the  meeting  atfJeneva 
seems  impracticable.  The  Senate  is  in  the  last  days  of  its  session,  with 
much  important  legislation  pending,  and  every  liour  of  its  time  pre- 
occupied. In  the  absence  of  any  imlication  of  a  disposition  on  the  part 
of  the  llritish  Govermnent  to  suggest  anything  to  which  this  Govt  iii- 
n>ent  could  assent,  it  would  be  imi)ossible  to  secure  enough  of  the  time 
of  the  Seiiate  to  agree  to  a  treaty  which  promises  only  further  delay 
and  [U'ocrastination. 

I  regret  not  to  see  an  indi-^ation  of  a  desiie  or  disposition  on  the  i)art 
of  the  British  Govenunent  to  come  to  an  agreement  which  will  be 
honorable  to  this  Government. 

If  the  Ibitish  <-o\ernment  has  any  pro))osals  to  make  they  will  be 
fairly  considered,  witL  the  most  sincere  desire  of  a  fratdc,  friendly,  and 


honorable  agreement. 


We  neither  ask  nor  will  consent  to  anything  else. 

•  •  • 


534 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


The  tone  of  Lord  Granville's  notes  seeras  to  assume  that  the  Senate 
and  this  Government  are  to  accept  what  Great  Britain  may  have  sug- 
gested.   Our  view  is  very  different. 

Fisn. 


[Fioia  Dritish  Hlue  Book  "North  Amorira,"  No.  9,  (1872,)  p.  3\>.] 

No.  71. 
Earl  (Iranville  to  Sir  E.  Thornton. 

FoiiEiGN  Offick,  May  20,  1872. 

Sill:  General  iSchenck  called  upon  me  early  this  nvuiiing,  and  in 
formed  me  that  he  had  received  a  telegram  from  Mr.  Fisli  stating  that 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  declined  to  agree  to  the  alterations 
which  Iler  Majesty's  Government  had  proposed,  as  set  forth  in  my  letter 
to  him  of  the  27th  instant,  in  the  Article  of  the  supplementary  Treaty. 

Mr.  Fish  says  that,  holding  to  the  opinion  that  the  claims  for  indirect 
losses  are  admissible  before  the  Arbitrators,  the  establishment  of  the 
principle  embodied  in  the  Article,  or  assented  to  l)y  the  Senate,  has 
been  its  object  in  atlhering  to  that  Article  ;  and  that  the  recognition  of 
that  principle  by  such  supplen  entary  Treaty  will  be  the  inducement  for 
withdrawing  the  claims. 

General  Schenck  further  said  that  he  last  telegraphed  to  Washington 
last  uiglit  the  whole  of  the  communication,  containing  the  additional 
obeservation  which  1  made  to  him  in  myletterof  yesterday,  but  that  le  did 
not  expect  to  receive  any  further  telegram  from  his  Government  before 
early  to-morrow  morning.  He  understood  that  Congress  had  agreed 
not  to  adjourn  till  next  Monday,  the  3d  of  June.  Before  that  day,  and 
probably  to-morrow,  he  expects  to  receive  a  reply  to  the  proposal  to 
extend  the  time  for  arbitration  beyond  the  15th  of  June,  and  he  there- 
lore  thought  he  should  not  have  to  trouble  me  before  noon  to-morrow. 
1  am,  &c., 

GRANVILLE. 


[Fioin  Hritish  Bin."  Book  "North  America,"  No.  '.»,  (1872,)  i).:?2.] 

No.  72. 

Memoranthnn  vcmmnnicated  by  General  Schcmk,  May  30, 1872. 

I  assume  that  your  object,  like  ours,  is  to  aftirm  the  principle  that 
neutrals  are  not  to  be  held  liable  foriiulirect  and  remote  damages  which 
may  be  the  result  of  a  failure  to  observe  neutral  obligations,  and  to 
establish  that  principle,  as  a  rule,  to  be  observed  between  our  two 
n.ations.  Your  proposed  form  of  Article,  as  it  was  amended  by  the 
Senate,  we  think  does  that.  You  think  it  is  too  vagus.  We  think  your 
proposal,  either  as  originally  made,  or  as  modilied  by  your  proposed 
amendment  of  the  language  of  the  Senate,  would  be  altogether  uncer- 
tain as  a  rule  in  practice,  confines  itself  to  hypothetical  cases  which  may 
never  occur;  and,  instead  of  recognizing  and  applying  the  general 
principle,  limits  the  rule  to  some  three  classes,  only  indirect  claims, 
being  those  whi<'h  are  put  forth  by  the  United  States  in  their  Case  at 
Geneva. 


CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRA.TION.      535 

No.  73. 
General  Schenck  to  ,Vr.  Fish. 


[Telegram.] 

London,  May  30,  1872.  (Received  I)  p.  in.) 
Your  telefjrain  of  yenterday  received  and  cointuuuicated  to  Lord 
iJranville.  lie  said  he  would  coidiiie  liimHelf  to  one  remark,  namely, 
that  your  statement  at  the  beginning?  from  the  words  "  he  raises,"  down 
to  the  word  "  views,"  was  inexplicable  to  him.  AVhat  had  been  the 
course  they  had  pursued  ?  They  had  at  the  request  of  the  Crovernment 
of  the  United  States  draughted  an  Article  founded  on  an  idea  of  that 
Government.  Tiie  Government  of  the  United  States  had  amended  that 
Article,  and  in  answer  they  had  not  merely  stated  an  objection  to  the 
amendment,  but  had  draughted  a  reamended  Article  for  tlieir  considera- 
tion, lie  said  he  would  not  make  any  further  argument  until  he  had 
submitted  to  his  colleagues  the  communication  which  had  just  been 
made  to  him.  I  stated  that  I  did  not  wish  to  go  into  any  argument,  but 
would  just  state  again  what  was  my  view  of  the  present  situation  and 
difterenco  between  us,  though  it  was  but  repeating  former  statements. 
I  said  to  him,  "I  assume  that  your  object,  like  ours,  is  to  affirm  the 
principle  that  neutrals  are  not  to  be  held  liable  for  indirect  and  remote 
damages,  which  may  be  the  result  of  a  failure  to  observe  neutral  obliga- 
tions, and  to  establish  that  principle  as  a  rule  to  be  observed  between 
our  two  nations.  Your  proposed  form  of  Article,  as  it  was  amended  by 
the  Senate,  we  think  does  that.  You  think  it  is  too  vague.  We  think 
your  proposal,  either  as  originally  made  or  as  modified  by  your  proposed 
amendment  of  the  language  of  the  Senate,  would  be  altogether  uncertain, 
as  a  rule  in  practice  confines  itself  to  hypothetical  cases  which  may 
never  occur,  and,  instead  of  recognizing  and  applying  the  general 
principle,  limits  the  rule  to  some  three  classes  only  of  indirect  claims, 
being  those  which  are  put  forward  by  the  United  States  in  their  Case  at 
Oeneva."    The  Cabinet  is  now  in  session. 

SCHENCK. 


No.  74. 

General  Schenck  to  Mr.  Finh. 


I|      No.  243.]  Legation  of  the  United  Stated, 

London^  May  30,  1872.    (Received  June  11.) 

Siu:  Inclosed  with  this  I  send  copies  of  all  written  correspondence 
wbich  has  passecl  between  Lord  Cranville  and  me  since  my  No.  230. 
These  notes  taken  in  connection  with  the  several  telegrams  which  have 
passed  between  you  and  me,  of  which  copies  are  also  forwarded  to  you 
with  another  dispatch  today,  will  bring  up  the  history  of  what  has  taken 
place  here  for  the  last  live  days  in  relation  to  the  proposal  for  a  sup- 
plementarj^  Treaty.  Y'our  telegram  of  the  28th,  declining,  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States,  to  agree  to  the  proposed  altering  of  the  supple- 
mentary Treaty,  was  received  in  the  night  aiul  commuuicated  to  Lord 
Granville  very  early  yesterday  morning.  I  would  give  you,  with  these 
documents,  some  narrative  and  comments,  and  it  was  njy  intention  to 


536 


TREATY    (tP    WASHINGTON. 


do  80,  but  your  Ion;;  tch>^rain  in  answer  to  the  observatioiiH  of  LonL 
Granville,  containtMl  in  his  note  which  I  tele<;raphe(l  to  you  in  full  at 
nii(hiip;ht  of  the  28th,  haH  this  nutnient  arrived  and  retinires  to  be  do- 
ciphered  an<l  to  have  my  ininiediate  attention,  ho  that  it  will  not  be 
])08Hible  to  ^ive  any  other  (;onitnunication  by  the  mail  whieh  i.s  made  tip 
for  Queenstown  today. 

1  have  the  honor  to  be,  «ir,  vour  obedient  servant, 

IMUJKUT  ('.  SCllKNTK. 


|Ilirlii>.iir<:  I  ill  X<i.  74.) 
fuitl  (Iraiivilh  to  (Itiitnil  Sriiiink. 

Foiii'.itix  (Minr.,  M(iif)i7,  \'*7'2. 

Sik:  I  iiistnictfil  Sir  K.  Tlioriiton  to  romiimnicalf  to  Mr.  FImIi  tUv.  ar<'oiii|»iiiiviii;; 
Corui  of  prtruinhlii  to  wliicli  Ih-r  Maji'sly's  (iovcniiiii'iit  witi'  |in<|iurfil  t«i  iijrrof  in  n\H>'  u 
cuiuvciitioii  hIioiiNI  [hi  coiicIikIiiI  fiiiliodyin^  tliti  draii^lit  Article.  I  liavt-  Iciirncil  t'lniu 
Sir  K.  Thumtuii  that  Mr.  KiNh  would  infi'ir  tlii'  oiiiiNHioii  of  tlio  words  "in  order  that 
the  .saniM  may  l>o  t'otnniiinicatfd  to  the  'I'liliiinal  of  Arbitration,  appointed  nniler  the 
tirHt  articU)  of  the  Tn-aty  Miuinil  at  WaMhin>;ton  on  the  f^th  of  May,  I'^l,  for  (he  ;;iii(l 
uncoof  tho  proceedinfjH  of  that  Trilinnal,"  and  I  have  this  day  ini'orined  Sir  K.  Thorn- 
ton that  he  may  tell  Mr.  I'IhIi  that  Her  MaJeNty'H  (iovernnieiit  will  not  inniHt  on  the 
words  whieh  ht^  dcHin-H  to  omit  in  the  preamble,  if  iit^  will  >{ive  .>ir  10.  Tiiornton  an 
nHouranci)  in  writing  that  the  (iovernmeni  of  the  Cnited  States  will  atrree  to  the  form 
of  noto  whieh  1  propo.sed,  and  of  wliieh  I  sent  yon  ii  copy  on  the  '^Oth  instant,  eoni- 
iminioatiii);  the  Cuilvention  on  tliu  part  of  the  two  (JovernmentH  to  tho  Trilinnal  ot 
Arhitration  at  Geneva.  I  have  to  add  that  Sir  K.  Thornton  has  a  general  full  power 
enabling  him  to  si;;n  a  Convention,  and  instrnetions  to  do  Mt  if  tho  propo.HalH.e,ontaineit 
in  this,  and  in  my  other  letters  of  this  day's  date,  are  agreed  to. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,   with   the  hi;;lieHt  ninsideratioii,   sir,   your   most  obedient. 
humble  servant, 

(iUANVlLI.K. 


!  Ii.closiirc  ','  ill  No.  Ti.] 

I'roitoHid  intain'ilc  lo  siipi.tfinritlul  Trtaly. 

Her  Majesty  the  t/iieeen  of  the  I'nited  Kin>;doin  of  Great  Ihitain  and  Irelainl,  and 
tho  United  States  of  Anieriea,  ha\  iii^  resoU  ed  to  I'oiii'liide  a  Convention  in  t!ie  terms  el 
the  Articles  liereinaflei'  set  forth,  in  order  that  the  same  may  be  communicated  to  tin 
Tribunal  of  Arbitration  appointed  under  the  tiist  .\rticle  of  the  Treaty  signed  al 
Washington,  on  tlu<  ~lh  ol  Slay.  HTI.  for  the  guidance  ut"  the  proceedings  of  thai 
Tribunal,  have  named  as  their  rh-nipotenliaries,  that  is  lo  say 


1  liulogurc  .1  ill  No.  71.) 
Jiari  Gr.it  vUlc  to  General  Scheiuli. 

KoHKhiN  Oi'M'icK,  Lu.NDo.v,  May '£7,  l'**".*. 

Sik:  I  have  loKt  nu  tim»  in  hiying  heforu  the  Cabinet  tliu  tulogrttpliio  dispatidi  from 
Mr.  Fish,  which  you  communicated  to  me  this  afternoon,  informing  yon  of  the  result 
of  tho  deliberations  of  the  Senate  on  the  draught  Article  submitted  for  theii  adviee 
by  thn  rresident  of  the  I'nited  .States,  it  ajipeared  from  this  dispatch  tlnit  the  Senate 
had  agreed  to  advist^  an«l  consent  to  the  adoption  of  tint  ])roposu«l  article,  with  the 
Hulmtitntion  for  the  third  and  fourth  paragraphs,  of  two  oaragraphs,  aH  follows  : 

"Ami  whereas  the  (ioverninent  of  the  Initial  .States  ha.s  contend«*d  that  the  said 
chiims  were  iiulndcd  in  the  Treaty;  and  whereas  both  Governments  adopt  for  the  fu- 
ture the  principli;  that  claims  tor  remote  or  indirect  luHses  should  mil  bo  admittiMl  u» 


CORRKsroXr»EX(E    UKSPECTINCJ    GEKEVA    AKIUTRATION.     537 

tliM  roHiilt  of  tlw  fiiiliiro  t<i  ohsi>rv<>  lUMitral  oltlipitioiis,  ho  t'iir  um  to  tlui-litrc  that  it  will 
li«ri!Hft<!r  ^iiiilo  tlio  conduct  ut'  botli  (■itvoriiiiioiitH  in  lliuir  rt-iiitioiis  witli  I'ticli  other, 
uow,  tlicrofon',"  «.Ve. 

In  cumniunicatiii);  tluH  tliNpatt-h  to  nir,  you  inquired  whether  any  poNsihlo  Interpre- 
tation could  be  ^iven  to  tlie  proposed  Artiein  in  the  form  in  whieh  the  Senate  have 
moditlud  it,  taking  all  itH  partn  together,  which  would  jirevent  takin<;  liefore  tlu)  Arbi- 
trutorH,  to  Ite  coimidertMl  ity  theui  lu  making  their  award,  that  part  of  the  uluini  calle«l 
"direct  clainiN"  in  the  CaHU,  which  related  to  the  coHt  of  purHuit  and  capture  of  cruiriurH. 

I  have  now  the  honor  to  Htate  that  I  must,  on  htdiulf  of  Her  MajeHty'8  (Jovernniuut, 
decline  to  auHwer  the  ((uestion  which  you  havt;  put  to  niu  ati  to  the  utVuct  of  the  articl«> 
an  altered  by  the  Senate,  or  to  state  what  pouMible  eonutruction  it  may  bear. 

Iler  Mi^jeHty's  (tovernment  are  of  opinion  that  the  detinition  asi  therein  expresHcd, 
of  tlio  i»rinciple  which  both  (iovt^rnmentN  are  jtrepared  tu  adopt  for  the  future,  Im  so 
vajrue  that  it  iu  imitosMible  to  state  to  what  it  is  or  i.s  not  applicable,  and  they  beliuvu 
that  it  would  only  lead  to  future  misunderstanding's.  That  Her  Majesty's  (jovernmcnt 
})refer  the  Article  as  they  had  drau)rhted  it,  but  have  no  objection  to  accept  the  Articlu 
lu  the  torm  proposetl  by  the  .Semite,  with  the  substitution  of  thu  words  "  of  u  lik» 
nature  "for  the  W(M°ds  "  for  remote  and  imlirect  losses,'' and  the  substitution  of  thu 
words  "such  want  of  due  diliyeno!  on  I  he  part  (»f  a  neutral  "  for  the  words  '•  the  fail- 
ure to  observe  neutral  obli;rat  ions."  The  article  would  then  run  thus:  "And  whereius 
both  (iovernnients  adopt  for  the  fu'iiP'  the  principle  that  claims  of  a  like  nature 
should  not  be  aduiitte<l  as  the  result  of  such  a  want  of  due  diligence  on  the  part  of  u 
neutral,  so  far  as  t(»  <lcclare  that  it  will  hereafter  ^^uiih-  the  conduct  of  Ijoth  (Joveru- 
numts  in  their  relations  with  each  other." 

I  havtr  tim  hoMMi  to  l>c,  with  the  hi^fliest  consideration,  sii,  your  most  obetlieut,  hum- 
li'o  MTvant, 

(iKANVlLLE. 


[Iiicliisuid  I  in  No.  7^.1 
(iiiiiral  Sthiiirl  to  I'miI  (ifaiirilli. 


I.K.tiATKlN    Ol     Tin:    I'MTKI)  .StATKS, 

My  Lmiii>:  I  received  late  last  evt-niii)'  your  note(tf  yesterday's  date,  informing  mc> 
in  relation  to  the  fiuiii  of  ]U'(!amble  which  you  had  instructed  Sir  Edward  Tliorntou  to 
communicate  to  Mr.  I'isli,  as  that  to  which  Her  Majttsty's  Government  were  prepared 
to  a;;ree  in  case  a  coiiveiitiou  should  bi>  coucluilod  embodying  thedraught  Article,  that 
you  had  since  h  ariied  from  Sir  Edward  that  Mr.  Fish  would  preft^r  the  omission  of  the 
words  "  in  order  that  the  same  may  be  cinnmunicated  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration 
aitpointed  under  the  first  Article  of  the  Treaty  signed  at  Washington,  on  the  8th  of 
May,  H71,  for  the  guidance  of  the  proceeilings  of  that  Tribunal,"  and  that  you  hiul 
intornied  Sir  Edward  Thornton  that  he  might  tt'll  Mr.  Fish  that  Her  .Majesty's  Govern- 
ment will  not  insist  on  the  words  which  he  desires  to  omit  in  the  preamble,  if  ho  will 
give  Sir  Eiiward  Thornton  assurance,  in  writing,  that  the  (Jovernment  of  the  United 
States  will  agree  to  the  form  of  note  whi(rli  you  proposed,  and  of  which  you  sent  me  a 
copy  on  the  'JOtli  instant,  communicatingfhe  Convention  on  the  part  of  tlic  two  Gov- 
ernments to  the  'I'ribiinal  of  Arbitration  attieneva. 

In  the  same  note  you  a<ld  that  Sir  Edward  Thornton  has  a  general  full  power,  en- 
ablin,;;  him  to  sign  a  convention,  and  instriu^tions  to  <lo  so  if  the  proposals  contained 
in  that  note  and  in  your  other  letter  of  the  same  date  are  agreed  to. 

Immediatidy  after  the  receipt  of  your  note  last  night  I  commuuicatcd  to  Mr.  Fish, 
hy  telegraph,  infoniiation  of  that  instruction  you  had  given  to  Sir  Edward  Thornton 
in  regard  to  mnitling  the  words  in  (|Uestion  from  the  preamble.  I  had  previously,  and 
early  in  the  day  yesterday,  telegraphed  to  .Mr.  Fish  the  informatitui  you  had  alrea<ly 
given  niM  verbally,  that  .Sir  IM  A  '141  Thornton  had  a  full  power  to  sign  a  convention. 

Uut  I  remark  now,  that  th  -  i,*  ri  u-tions  to  Her  Majesty's  .Minister  at  Washington 
appear  by  your  note  to  have  1  -vu  |;: .  mi  to  be  exercised  on  a  condition.  I  beg  to  know 
from  your  E(u-dship  if  I  am  t  >  iiu  1<  sstand  that  Sir  Edward  Thornton's  authority  to 
sign  is  limited  by  his  instnictioiK.  ui'l  only  t<»  be  used  in  the  ease  that  the  proposals 
contained  in  your  notes  ad«iies-i'  -i  to    ne  yestenlay  am  agreed  to  by  tho  United  States. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  witli  the  highest  consideration,  uiy  Lord,  your  Lordship's 
most  (dtedieiit  servant, 

ROBT.  C.  SCHEXCK. 


■.%. 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


*"IIIIIM  |||||M 
|lllllM  |||m 

"     12.0 


lAO 


1.8 


1.4    11.6 


Photographic 

Sdences 

Corporation 


^ 


^< 


^^ 


<^ 


O^ 


k 


23  WEST  MAINS T>?Ea 

WEBSTER, N.Y.  H.'BO 

(716)  872-4503 


^ 


>"  mx. 


.^  C?j 


i/l 


^ 


^ 


538 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


[Inclosure  5  in  Xo.  14.] 
General  Schenck  to  Earl  Granville. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  May  28,  1872. 

My  Lord  :  I  received  last  night,  between  9  and  10  o'clock,  your  note  informing  mo 
that  you  had  lost  no  time  in  laying  before  the  Cabinet  the  telegraphic  dispatch  from 
Mr.  Fish,  which  I  communicated  to  yon  yesterday,  informing  you  of  the  result  of  the 
deliberations  of  the  Senate  on  the  draught  Article,  submitted  for  their  advice  by  tlio 
rrcsident  of  the  United  States. 

You  remark  that  in  communicating  that  dispatch  to  you  I  inquired  whether  any 
possible  interpretation  could  be  given  to  the  proposed  Article  in  the  form  in  which  the 
Senate  have  modified  it,  taking  all  its  parts  together,  which  would  prevent  taking  be- 
fore the  Arbitrators,  to  be  considered  by  them  in  making  their  award,  that  part  of  the 
claim  called  "direct  claims"  in  the  Case,  which  relates  to  the  cost  of  pursuit  and  cap- 
ture of  cruisers;  and  you  state  that  you  must,  on  behalf  of  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment, decline  to  answer  that  (xucstion  as  to  the  effect  of  the  Article  as  altered  by  the 
Senate,  or  to  state  what  possible  construction  it  may  bear. 

I  will  here  only  interpose,  as  to  that  question,  to  say  that  the  point  was  brought  to 
your  Lordship's  attention,  in  connection  with  the  delivery  to  you  of  the  Article  as  the 
Senate  had  proposed  to  amend  it,  because  I  desired  by  the  iniiuiry  to  remind  you  that, 
■whatever  might  become  the  form  in  which  the  article  might  ultimately  be  adopted,  it 
could  not  bo  intended  to  open  any  question  in  relation  to  claims  to  the  introduction  of 
which  Her  Majesty's  Govornmeut  had  never  objected,  "notwithstanding  the  doubt 
how  far  those  claims,  though  mentioned  during  the  conferences  as  direct  claims,  came 
withiu  the  proper  scope  of  arbitration." 

I  quote  the  language  of  your  Lordship's  note  to  me  of  the  20th  of  March  last.  The 
Government  of  the  United  States  is  of  opinion  that  the  language  of  the  Senate  can- 
not be  interpreted  to  exclude  those  claims ;  but  I  am  now  instructed  to  say  that  the 
Article,  in  whatever  form  adopted,  as  to  the  proceeding  before  the  Arbitrators  at 
Geneva,  must  be  understood  to  prevent  only  the  presentation  of  the  claims  enumerated 
in  the  second  contention  of  Her  Majesty's  Government. 

Your  Lordship  in  this  note  proceeds  to  inform  me  that  Her  Majesty's  Governnieut 
are  of  opinion  that  the  definition,  as  expressed  in  the  Senate  amendment,  of  the  priu- 
cii)le  which  both  Governments  are  prepared  to  adopt  for  the  future  is  so  vague  that  it 
is  impossible  to  state  to  what  it  is  or  is  not  applicable,  and  they  believe  that  it  would 
only  lead  to  future  misunderstandings.  That  Her  Majesty's  Government  prefer  the 
Article  as  they  had  draughted  it,  but  have  no  objection  to  accept  the  Article  in  the 
form  proposed  by  the  Senate,  with  the  substitution  of  the  words  "  of  a  like  nature  " 
for  the  words  "  for  remote  or  indirect  losses,"  and  the  substitution  of  the  words  "  such 
want  of  due  diligence  on  the  p;  ft  of  a  neutral"  for  the  words  "  the  failure  to  observe 
neutral  obligations."  The  Article  would  then  run  thus :  "And  whereas  both  Govern- 
ments adopt  for  the  future  the  principle  that  claims  of  a  like  nature  should  not  be  ad- 
mitted as  the  result  of  such  a  want  of  due  diligence  on  the  part  of  a  neutral,  so  far  as 
to  declare  that  it  will  hereafter  guide  the  conduct  of  both  Governments  in  their  rela- 
tions with  each  other." 

I  hastened  last  night  to  telegraph  the  full  substance  of  all  this  communication  to 
Mr.  Fish. 

I  am  as  yet  without  any  answer  to  that  telegram,  and  without  instruction  or  infor- 
mation as  to  the  disposition  of  ray  Government  to  entertain  or  consider  the  changes 
which  Her  Majesty's  Government  propose  to  the  Senate's  amendment.  But  I  am  not 
prepared  to  believe  that  the  modification  can  be  assented  to  by  the  President.  Such 
change  of  language  would  alter  the  whole  character  of  the  agreement. 

I  cannot  permit  to  pass  unquestioned  the  expression  of  the  opinion  of  Her  Majesty's 
Government  as  to  the  vagueness  of  the  definition  of  the  prinaiple  which  both  Govern- 
ments are  prepared  to  adopt,  and  of  the  impossibility  of  stating  to  what  it  is  or  is  not 
applicable,  although  in  replying  I  may  but  in  effect  repeat  what  I  said  to  you  in  au 
interview  of  the  10th  of  this  month,  and  of  which  I  gave  you  a  memorandum  iu 
writing. 

What  the  United  States  has  all  along  proposed  as  the  ground  on  which  the  two  Gov- 
ernments might  safely,  honorably,  and  consistently  meet,  is  the  establishment  of  a  rule, 
to  be  the  law  or  contract  in  the  future  between  them,  declaring  that  neither  of  them 
shall  demand  compensation  from  the  other  for  remote  or  indirect  losses  arising  out  of, 
or  being  the  result  of,  failure  in  the  observance  of  neutral  obligations.  This  rule  should 
be  the  expression  of  a  principle  to  be  applied  to  cases  as  they  may  arise;  and  ought 
not  to  consist  in  a  reference  to  cases  or  circumstances  which  may  or  may  not  ever  oc- 
cur, and  be  limited  to  those  instances,  without  application  to  other  cases  in  which  the 
damage  done  or  alleged  may  be  eciually  or  further  removed  from  the  act  of  which  it  is 
assumed  to  be  the  result. 

They  do  not  see  that  there  is  vagueness  in  such  a  rule  or  difficulty  iu  its  application 


CORRKSPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.      539 


TATE8, 

ei/ 28,  1872.  ' 
iforming  mo 
ispatch  from 
result  of  the 
ilvice  by  tho 

svhetlior  any 
in  which  the 
it  taking  be- 
,t  part  of  the 
luit  and  cap- 
^ty's  Govern- 
tered  by  the 

,s  brought  to 
article  as  the 
ad  you  that, 

0  adopted,  it 
troduction  of 
ig  the  doubt 
claims,  came 

3h  last.    Tiie 

1  Senate  can- 
say  that  tlie 
.rbitrators  at 
\  enumerated 

Government 
of  the  priu- 
raguo  that  it 
hat  it  would 
it  prefer  the 
rticle  in  the 
like  nature  " 
words  "  such 
'e  to  observe 
l)oth  Govern- 
Id  not  be  ad- 
ral,  80  far  as 
n  their  rela- 

unicatioa  to 

ion  or  infor- 
the  changes 
lut  I  am  not 
lideut.   Such 

[er  Majesty's 
)oth  Govern- 
is  or  is  not 
to  you  in  au 
lorandum  iu 

he  two  Gov- 
mt  of  a  rule, 
her  of  them 
ising  out  of, 
9  rule  should 
;  and  ought 
not  ever  oc- 
n  which  the 
f  which  it  is 

application 


to  tacts,  beyond  what  may  be  said  of  any  other  principle  embodied  in  statute  or  treaty 
law. 

Consider,  my  Lord,  what  is  the  history  of  that  difference  between  our  two  Govern- 
ments which  has  IcJ  to  the  negotiation  for  a  supplemental  Treaty  Article. 

The  United  Stacus  have  put  forward  in  their  Case  at  Geneva,  for  the  consideration  of 
the  Arbitrators,  curtain  claims,  to  which  the  British  Government  objects.  Great  Britain 
founds  her  objection  to  those  claims  uot  merely  on  her  interpretation  of  the  Treaty, 
according  to  w^hich  she  insists  they  are  inadmissible,  but  also  ou  the  ground  that  audi 
claims  are,  from  their  very  character  and  nature,  such  as  ought  not  to  bo  presented  ; 
''that  such  claims,"  to  use  the  emphatic  language  of  your  Lordship,  "are  wholly  be- 
yond the  reasonable  scope  of  any  treaty  of  arbitration  whatever,  avl  that  to  submit 
them  for  decision  by  the  Tribunal  would  be  a  measure  fraught  with  pernicious  conse- 
quences to  the  interests  of  all  nations  and  to  the  future  peace  of  the  world."  That  Her 
llajesty's  Government  "  cannot  see  that  it  would  be  advantageous  to  either  country  to 
render  the  obligations  of  neutrality  so  onerous  as  they  would  become  if  claims  of  this 
nature  wore  to  be  treated  as  proper  subjects  of  international  arbitration." 

What  is  that  nature  of  tho  claims  iu  «iuestion  which  makes  ihomso  objectionable  to 
Her  Majesty's  Government?    They  are  indirect,  remote,  cousequeutial. 

Will  you,  thou,  unite  with  us,  asks  tho  Government  of  the  United  States,  in  an  agree- 
ment founded  upon  that  principle  for  which  you  contend,  and  as  broad  as  the  principle 
itself,  "  that  claims  for  remote  or  indirect  losses  should  not  bo  admitted  as  tho  result 
of  failure  to  observe  neutral  obligations;"  and  will  you  unite  with  us  in  a  declara- 
tion that  this  principle  "  will  hereafter  guide  tho  conduct  of  both  Governments  in  their 
relations  to  each  oiher  ?"  Can  Great  Britain  continue  to  reply  that  wliilo  she  desires  to 
make  such  a  rule,  a  rule  consistent  with  the  position  she  has  taken  against  the  whole 
class  of  remote  or  indirect  claims,  against  a  neutral,  she  must  persist  in  coufiniug  it  in 
terms  to  only  such  peculiar  descriptions  of  that  class  of  indirect  claims  as  happen  now 
to  be  the  subject  of  contention  between  her  and  the  United  States,  and  which  particu- 
lar kind  of  claims  may  never  have  existence  .igain  ?  Will  it  not  seem,  if  this  be  tho 
limit  of  the  agreement,  that  tho  object  is  not  to  affirm  and  vindicate  au  important 
principle,  but  only  to  find  an  expedient  for  excluding  from  consideration,  or  extinguish- 
ing altogether,  certain  matters  which  arc  unfortunately  now  a  present  cause  of  contro- 
versy ? 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  tho  highest  consideration,  my  Lord,  your  Lordship's 
most  obedient  servant, 

ROBT.  C.  SCIIENCK. 


'I- 


Siu: 


[Iiiclosure  C  iu  No.  74.] 

Earl  Granville  to  General  Selwnek. 

Foreign  Omcf:,  London,  May  28,  1872. 
Ic  reply  to  the  inquiry  contained  in  your  letter  of  this  day,  respecting  the  lim- 


itation placed  upon  the  immediate  exercise  by  Sir  Edward  Thornton  of  the  general  full 
power  to  sign  treaties  with  which  he  is  provided,  I  have  the  honor  to  acquaint  yon 
that  while  we  are  far  from  asserting  that  the  form  of  Article  proposed  by  Her  Majesty's 
Government  is  not  capable  of  further  improvement  upon  sufficient  cause  being  shown, 
Sir  Edward  Thornton  has  no  instructions  to  use  his  full  powers,  except  in  accordance 
with  the  arrangement  we  have  proposed. 

I  have  the  lionor  to  be,  sir,  your  most  obedient,  humble  servant, 

GRANVILLE. 


[luclosure  7  in  No.  74.] 

Earl  Granville  to  Genei'al  Schcnck, 

FoHKiGN'  Offick,  London  Maij  28,  1872. 

Sih:  I  have  toacknowlcdge  thereceiptof  tho  letter  which  you  have  done  mo  the  lionor 
to  address  to  mo,  in  reply  to  my  letter  of  yesterday,  in  which  I  informed  you  that  I  had 
laid  before  the  Cabine*^  the  telegraphic  dispatch  from  Mr.  Fish,  stating  the  result  of 
the  deliberations  of  the  Senate  ou  tlie  draught  Article  submitted  by  tho  President  for 
their  advice. 

As  you  acquainted  me  to-day  that  you  had  not  received  any  reply  from  Mr.  Fish  to 
your  communication  of  my  bitter,  I  think  it  bettor  to  defer  till  I  hear  from  you  the 
view  taken  of  my  letter  by  Mr.  Fish,  before  replying  to  the  observations  contained  iu 
your  letter. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  ;">',  your  most  obedient, 
humble  servant, 

GRANVILLE. 


540 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


[liiclosuro  8  in  No.  74.1 
Eurl  Grain-illv  to  General  Sclwnck. 

Foreign  Offkk,  London,  May  28,  187:J. 

Silt:  I  tliiiik  it  ilesiiiil)le  at  oiico  to  address  to  you  the  following  observations,  in  ad- 
dition to  wliat  is  stated  in  my  letter  of  yestorday  : 

Her  Majesty's  Government  proposed  an  Article  on  the  suggestion  of  the  American 
Government. 

That  Article  has  been  amended  by  tlie  Senate. 

Her  Majesty's  Government  are  not  able  to  find  for  it,  as  amended,  any  means  or 
standard  of  interpretation. 

The  words  appear  to  include  the  willful  misconduct  of  a  neutral  as  well  na  a  failuie 
from  want  of  due  diligence. 

They  cannot  suppose  this  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  American  Government. 

Her  Majesty's  Government  hold  all  the  claims  made  oy  the  United  States  for  losses 
which  were  the  direct  results  of  the  acts  of  vessels  mentioned  in  the  Treaty,  to  b« 
claims  for  "  indirect  losses  as  the  result  of  the  failure  to  observe  neutral  obligations." 

Her  Majesty's  Government  hold  many  of  the  claims  for  the  losses  above  mentioned 
to  be  claims  for  losses  which  are  "  remote  "  as  well  as  "  indirect,"  while  "  resulting 
from  a  failure  to  observe  neutral  obligations." 

Her  Majesty's  Government  are  unable  to  signify  an  assent  to  a  form  of  Article  ol' 
which  they  cannot  for  themselves  discover  the  scope,  and  with  respect  to  which,  owing 
probably  to  the  difficulty  of  telegraphic  communication,  they  have  not  been  apprised 
of  the  meaning  which  the  American  Government  attaches  to  it,  or  of  the  reasons 
which  have  led  to  its  being  proposed. 

If  the  Government  of  the  United  States  think  it  desirable  to  give  the  information 
which  Her  Majesty's  Government  wish  to  receive  on  these  points,  and  also  think  that 
for  that  purpose  some  adjournment  of  the  time  of  meeting  of  the  Arbitrators  of  Ge- 
neva should  t.ike  place.  Her  Majesty's  Government  would  be  ready  to  agree  to  any 
suitable  proposal  for  that  purpose,  which  they  presume  could  only  be  done  by  a  short 
treaty  between  the  two  Governments. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient, 
humble  servant. 

GRANVILLE. 


[ludosure  9  ill  Xo.  7-1.1 
General  Schencl'  to  Earl  Granville. 

LiXiATKiN   OV  TIIK    UnITKD   StATKS, 

London,  May  28,  1872. 

My  LoiU) :  I  received  at  8  o'clock  this  evening  your  note  of  this  date,  in  which  yon 
say  you  think  it  desirable  to  address  to  me,  as  you  therein  proceed  to  do,  some  obser- 
vations in  addition  to  what  is  stated  in  your  letter  of  yesterday. 

I  shall  hasten  to-night  to  communicate  the  whole  of  this  note  by  telegraph  to  my 
Government. 

I  liave  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  my  Lord,  your  Lordship's 
most  obedient  servant, 

ROBT.  C.  SCHENCK. 


No.  75. 

Oc7ieral  SohencJc  to  Mr.  Fish. 
[Telegram.] 

London,  May  31, 1872.    (Received  7.35  a.  ui.) 
At  2.45  tbis  morning'  Lord  Granville  sends  me  the  following,  date(T 
30tb: 

lEarl  Granville  to  General  Schencl.'] 

Siu:  I  am  nimble  to  admit  the  accuracy  of  the  description  which  Mr.  Fish  has 
given  in  the  telegraphic  message  which  you  have  communicated  to  me  to-day  of  tho 
course  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  has  pursued,  or  of  the  objects  which  they  have 
had  in  view.    I  can  only  attribute  such  a  misunderstanding  to  the  imperfection  una- 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.      541 

voidably  attendant  on  negotiations  by  telogrnph,  which  makes  it  difticnlt  for  either 
party  clearly  to  understand  tlio  views  and  arguments  of  the  other.  This  circnnistance 
seems  to  strengthen  the  reason  for  the  snggestion  which  I  made  in  favor  of  an  .adjourn- 
ment of  the  meeting  of  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  Geneva.  Her  Majesty'.s  Govern- 
ment have  stated  their  objections  to  the  words  proposed  by  the  Senate.  I  have  already 
informed  you  that  they  did  not  pretend  that  the  words  suggested  by  themselves  were 
incapable  of  improvement,  atul  they  have  resolved  to  make  a  suggestion  which  they 
trust  will  meet  the  views  of  both  Governments.  I  proceed  therefore  to  put  you  in  pos- 
he  American  ^|  session  of  a  draught  Article,  of  which  I  inclose  a  copy,  and  which,  if  adopted  by  the 

I  Government  of  the  United  States,  Her  Majesty's  Government  would  bo  prepared  to 

I  accept : 

"  Whereas  the  Government  of  Her  Britannic  ifajes*^.7  has  contended  in  the  recent 

}  correspondence  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  as  follows,  namely,  that 
such  indirect  claims  as  those  for  the  national  losses  stated  in  the  Case  presented  on 
the  part  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at 
Geneva,  to  have  been  sustained  by  the  loss  in  the  transfer  of  the  American  commer- 
cial marine  to  the  British  Hag,  the  enhanced  payments  of  insurance,  the  prolongation 
of  the  war,  and  the  addition  of  a  large  sum  to  the  cost  of  war  and  the  suppression  of 
the  rebellion — firstly,  were  not  included  in  fact  in  the  Treaty  of  Washington  ;  and 
further  and  secondly,  should  not  be  admitted  in  principle  as  growing  out  of  the  acts 
committed  by  particular  vessels  alleged  to  have  been  enabled  to  commit  depredations 
upon  the  shipping  of  a  belligerent  by  reason  of  such  a  want  of  due  diligence  in  the 
performance  of  neutral  obligations  as  that  which  is  imputed  by  the  United  States  to 
Great  Britain  ;  and  whereas  the  Governmeut  of  the  United  States  has  contended  that 
the  said  claims  were  included  in  the  Treaty  ;  and  whereas  both  Governments  .adopt  for 
the  future  the  principle  that  claims  against  neutrals  for  remote  and  indirect  losses 
should  not  be  admitted  as  resulting  from  the  act  of  belligerents  which  such  belliger- 
ents may  have  been  enabled  to  commit  by  reason  ofa  want  of  due  diligence  on  the 
part  of  a  neutral  in  the  performance  of  neutral  obligations  so  far  as  to  declare  that 
this  principle  will  hereafter  guide  the  conduct  of  both  Governments  in  their  relations 
with  each  other  :  now,  therefore,  in  consideration  thereof,  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  thereof,  consents  that  he 
will  make  no  claim  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  before  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration 

I  at  Geneva,  n  '"Ji  ect  of  the  several  classes  of  indirect  losses  hereinbefore  enumerated." 


No.  70. 


3[)\  Fish  to  General  Sehenck. 


[Telegram. — Extract.] 

Washington,  May  31, 1872. 

As  stated  iu  a  previous  dispatch  wliicli  you  communicated  to  Her 
Majesty's  Governmeut,  unless  a  treaty  be  signed  and  ratified  by  this 
I  Government  this  day,  so  as  to  be  transmitted  to  London  by  to-morrow's 
steamer,  for  ratification  by  Her  Majesty,  it  will  not  be  possible  that  it 
become  operative  In  time  to  be  laid  before  the  Arbitrators  at  Geneva  on 
15th  June,  on  which  day  the  existing  Treaty  re(iuircs  that  the  arguments 
be  presented. 

Your  telegram  reached  me  this  morning  witliin  thirteen  hours  of  the 
departure  of  the  last  conveyance  by  which  a  copy  of  a  treaty  can  leave 
here  to  take  the  steamer  of  tomorrow. 

It  would  be  impossible  for  the  Senate,  within  that  time,  to  consider 
the  important  change  proposed  of  the  form  and  terms  iu  which,  after 
long  deliberation,  they  have  agreed  to  advise  the  President  to  negotiate 
the  proposed  Article. 

Her  Majesty's  ministry  has  already  been  apprised  of  this. 

To  propose  a  change  of  language,  involving  a  change  of  objeci  and  of 
effect,  at  this  late  period,  is  therefore  practically  to  defeat  any  agreement. 

Lord  Granville  admits  that  the  language  of  the  Article  first  proposed 
by  Her  Majesty's  Government  might  be  improved.    The  President 


542 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


thinks  that  the  same  may  be  said  of  that  now  proposed  by  Lord  Gran- 
ville ;  it  appears  to  him  to  leave  a  large  class  of  very  probable  cases 
unprovided  for,  and  he  holds  that  the  result  of  bad  faith,  or  of  willful 
misconduct  toward  either  of  these  two  Governments,  will  never  be  the 
subject  of  pecuniary  compensation. 

I  have  suggested  to  Sir  Edward  Thornton  that  we  sign  the  Article  as 
recommended  by  the  Senate,  and  thus  put  it  in  operation,  and  allow  the 
arbitration  to  proceed. 

It  is  not  believed  that  there  is  any  such  difference  of  object  between 
the  two  Governments  in  the  definition  and  limitation  which  each  desires 
to  place  upon  the  liability  of  a  neutral,  as  to  prevent  an  agreement  on 
the  language  in  which  to  express  it,  if  time  be  allowed  for  an  exchange 
of  views  by  some  other  means  than  the  telegrapl- 

There  is  no  probability  of  a  practical  question  on  the  extent  of  that 
liability  arising  immediately. 

This  Government  is  willing'at  once  to  enter  upon  negotiations  for  tlie 
purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  language  can  be  employed  which  shall 
more  clearly  express  the  views  which  it  is  believed  are  entertained  by 
both  parties. 

Fisn. 


[From  British  Blue  Book  "  North  America,"  No.  9,  (187'.',)  p.  33.] 

No.  77.  ■    " 

Uarl  Granville  to  Sir  E.  Thornton. 

Foreign  Office,  May  31, 1872. 

Sir  :  I  send  you  the  draught  of  a  Convention  for  adjourning  the  period 
for  the  presentation  of  the  arguments  under  the  Vth  Article  of  the 
Treaty  of  Washington,  to  be  used,  however,  by  joxx.  only  in  case  of  the 
new  Treaty  Article  proposed  by  us  not  being  agreed  to,  and  an  adjourn- 
ment being  agreed  to,  in  which  case  you  are  authorized  to  sign  it  as  it 
is  now  sent  to  you. 
I  {im,  &c., 

GRANVILLE. 


[Inclosnre  in  No.  77.J 
Skelvh  of  a  Convention. 

Her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  and 
the  United  States  of  America,  deeming  it  expedient  to  extend  the  time  assigned  in  the 
Vth  Article  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  of  the  8th  of  May,  1871,  for  the  delivery  in 
duplicate  to  each  of  the  Arbitrators  appointed  under  the  Ist  Article  of  the  said  Treaty, 
and  to  the  Agents  of  the  respective  parties,  of  the  written  or  printed  argument,  showing 
the  points  and  referring  to  the  evidence  upon  which  each  of  the  said  parties  respect- 
ively relies,  in  regard  to  the  matters  submitted  by  them  for  arbitration  under  the  afore- 
said Ist  Article,  they  have  agreed  to  conclude  a  Convention  for  that  purpose,  and  have 
accordingly  named  as  their  Plenipotentiaries  : 

That  is  to  say,  «&c. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.      543 

Akticlb  I. 

The  High  Contracting  Parties  agree  that  the  period  appointed  under  the  Vth  Article 
of  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  of  May  8,  1871,  for  the  delivery  in  diiplica'e  to  eacii  ot 
the  Arbitrators,  and  to  the  Agents  of  the  respective  High  Contracting  Parties,  of  the 
written  or  printed  argument,  showing  the  points  and  referring  to  the  evidence  upon 
which  each  of  the  said  parties  respectively  relies,  in  regard  to  the  matters  submitted 
by  them  for  arbi'^ration  under  the  1st  Article  of  the  aforesaid  Treaty,  shall  not  bo  in- 
sisted on,  but  tL.4  't  shall  be  open  to  the  High  Contracting  Parties,  within  the  period 
of  three  months  fi  jm  the  date  of  the  exchange  of  the  ratitications  of  the  present  Con- 
vention, jointly  to  notify,  through  tlieir  respective  Agents  to  the  Arbitrators,  the  day 
on  whicli  those  Agents  will  be  prepared  to  deliver  at  Geneva  the  said  arguments  to  the 
Arbitrators. 

Articlk  II. 

A  copy  of  this  Convention  shall  be  fortliwith  counn\inicated_by  the  Agents  of  the 
High  Contracting  Parties  to  tba  several  Arbitrators. 

AlMICI.E  III. 

The  present  Convention  shall  be  ratilied,  and  the  rati lications  exchanged  at  LouloDf. 
within  weeks  from  the  date  thereof. 


[From  British  Pino  Book  -'North  America,"  No.  9,  (187-2,)  p.  4(i.] 

Xo.  78. 


Sir  E.  Thornton  to  Earl  GranciUe. 
[Extract.] 

Washington,  May  31,  1872.    (Received  June  11.) 

I  received  a  visit  from  Mr.  Fish  early  in  the  morning  of  the  29th 
instant,  when  he  read  to  me  a  telegram  he  had  received  from  General 
Scheuck,  a  copy  of  which  was  forwarded  in  your  telegram  of  the  2Sth 
instant. 

Mr.  Fish  said  that  he  could  not  entirely  understand  the  ground  of  your 
Lordship's  objections  to  the  supplementary  Article  as  recommended  by 
the  Senate,  lie  went  on  to  say,  that  as  the  session  was  now  so  near  its 
close,  and  as  there  was  an  immense  amount  of  business  still  to  be  got 
through,  he  believed  that  it  would  be  quite  impossible  to  obtain  an 
Executive  Session  for  the  purpose  of  taking  into  consideration  even  so 
short  a  Treaty  as  would  be  necessary  to  agree  upon  an  adjournment  of 
the  meeting  of  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration,  more  particularly  as  in 
transmitting  such  a  Treaty  to  the  Senate  for  its  sanction,  it  would  be 
necessary  to  state  that  the  supplementary  Article  recently  recom* 
mended  by  that  body  had  been  rejectetl  by  Jler  Majesty's  Government, 
and  to  accompany  that  statement  by  the  confidential  telegrams  which 
had  passed  between  General  Schenck  and  himself  upon  the  subject. 

Mr.  Fish  added,  that  even  if  such  a  Treaty  of  adjournment  were 
signed  and  ratified,  there  would  still  be  the  same  difficulty  about  making 
a  convention  as  to  the  course  which  was  to  be  pursued  with  regard  to 
indirect  claims.  It  could  not  be  done  immediately,  and  it  would  be  a 
matter  of  great  difficulty  to  convoke  the  Senate  in  Extraordinary 
Session  during  the  summer  for  the  purpose  of  ratifying  such  a  conven- 
tion. It  could  not,  therefore,  be  submitted  to  the  Senate  till  it  met  in 
December  next,  and  it  could  not  be  foreseen  when  it  might  be  taken 


> 


544 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON. 


into  consideration  ;  and  it  would,  therefore,  be  very  difficult  to  decide 
until  what  date  the  meeting  of  the  Tribunal  should  be  postponed. 

It  is  at  present  «lifficult  to  prevent  members  of  Congress  from  avail- 
ing themselves  of  any  opportunity  to  interrupt  the  most  necessary  and 
pressing  business,  and  to  make  violent  party  speeches  in  both  Houses. 


No.  79. 

Oeneral  SchcncJc  to  Mr.  Fish. 

Nc.  24G.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  June  1,  1872.    (Received  June  13.) 

Sir  :  I  transmit  herewith  a  copy  of  Lord  Granville's  note  to  me  of 
the  30tli  May,  communicating,  on  the  part  of  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment, another  amended  draught  Article,  received  at  2.45  yesterday  morn- 
ing, and  of  which,  both  note  and  amended  Article,  I  sent  you  the  full 
text  by  telegraph  early  the  same  morning. 

I  transmit  also  a  copy  of  my  note  to  Lord  Granville,  acknowledging 
the  receipt  of  the  above-mentioned  communication,  and  informing  him 
that  I  would  immediately  telegraph  his  note  and  the  new  draught  to  you ; 
and  a  copy  of  my  note  to  him  sent  at  midnight  last  night,  conveying  to 
him  a  copy  of  your  telegram  of  yesterday  received  at  that  hour. 

It  is  now  afternoon,  and  I  have  as  yet  heard  nothing  from  his  Lord- 
ship in  answer,  or  in  relation,  to  that  telegram. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

ROBT.  C.  SCHENCK. 


[Inclosuie  1  in  No.  79.] 
General  Scli?nclc  to  Earl  Grannlle. 

"jS  Gkeat  Cumberland  Plack,  Hyde  Park,  W., 
Friday,  2.45  a.  m,,  May  31,  1872. 

Mv  Lord  :  I  bave  just  been  callcil  from  my  Led  to  receive  your  note,  dated  the 
30th,  putting  me  in  possession  of  another  form  of  a  draught  Article  which  Her 
Majesty's  Government  would  be  prepared  to  accept  if  adopted  by  the  Governmeut  of 
the  United  States. 

I  will  hasten  to  communicate  you-  note  ond  the  draught  to  Mr.  Finh  by  telegraph, 
80  that  they  may  reach  Washington  at  the  earliest  possible  hour  for  consideration 
there. 

I  am,  mv  Lord,  with  the  highest  considenition,  vour  Lordship's  most  obedient  servant, 

ROBT.  C.  SCHENCK. 


[Inclohure  2  in  Xo.  7r.] 
General  Scherc^c  to  Earl  GraiMlle. 

58  Great  Cumberland  Place, 

May  31,  1872,  midnight. 

My  Lord:  I  have  just  received  from  Mr.  Fish  a  telegraphic  dispatch,  of  which  I 
hasten  to  communicat;  to  yon  the  inclosed  copy. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  my  Lord,  with  the  highest  consideration,  your  Lordship's  most 
obedient  servant, 

ROBT.  C.  SCHENCK. 


(  OHRKSPOXUKNCK    ini.SIMX'lINO    (JKNKN  A    AIMMTKATION.      ')[!") 

No.  SO. 

.1/^.  /V.\7(   (<>  ilntcral  SchciicK. 

[Tflcurjiiii.  1 

\VASlII.\:iTON,  ./««r  1,  ISTl.'. 

Tlie  lif'th  Article  of  the  Treaty  requires  tlie  written  ar;;niiients  to  lie 
presented  by  the  loth  .June. 

The  atljoiirnnicnt  of  the  Tribunal  without  ainentlinj;'  tiiat  Artiele 
would,  aa  we  are  advised,  ])racti(;ally  amount  to  a  diseontinuanee,  and 
that  Artiiile  can  be  amended  only  by  a  new  treaty. 

The  oi>inion  attributed  to  me  rej''ar<ling  the  Senate  Article  is  very  in- 
correctlv  represented. 

KISH, 


•    No.  M. 
General  iSehenelc  to  Mr.  Fish. 
[Tt'lt'jjjraiii.] 

London,  June  I,  l.STi'.     (Iteceived  o.oO  i>.  m.) 

Your  telegram  of  yesterday  was  received  at  midnight,  and  imme- 
diately communicated  to  Lord  CJra  ville,  who  ha.s  Just  sent  me  an  answer 
as  follows : 


\  Had  (rniiirillc  to  doieral  iWicHr/,.] 

Siu:  III  ii'ply  t(»  the  comnmniciitiou  which  I  rcfcived  from  you  tliiis  iiunniiin,  I  hc^j; 
to  int'di'in  you  that  Her  Majesty's  (Joverumoiit  hohl  that  by  the  Aiticle  adoptott  by  the 
Seuiitc,  cases  of  bad  faith  and  willful  iiiiseoiidiiet  are  bntught  within  the  scope  of  the 
l>iopo8ed  aj^ieeinent,  which  deals  with  pecmiiaiy  compensation.  It  appears  to  be  the 
view  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  that  sncli  cases  are  not  a  tit  subject  of 
pecuniary  comi)ensation,  and  I  am  infornu'd  by  Sir  Edward  Thornton  th.at  Mr.  Fish  is 
of  opinion  that  tlie  ArticUi  adopted  by  the  Senate  is  capable  of  imi)rovem(;nt.  The 
President  thinks  that  the 'Article  last  projtosed  by  Her  Majesty's  (Joverimient  is  al><> 
capable  of  improvement.  The  American  (iovernment  state  that  "  it  is  not  believe<l 
that  there  is  any  such  difference  of  object  between  the  two  Ciovernments  in  the  dtitini- 
tiou  and  limitation  which  each  desires  to  place  upon  the  liability  of  a  neutral  as  ti> 
])revent  an  agreement  on  the  lan}>;ua;j;e  in  which  to  exjiress  it  if  time  be  allowed  for 
the  exchan<>e  of  views  by  some  other  means  than  the  telegraph."  The  Hritish  (iovern- 
nient  must  decline  to  sign  a  treaty  which  is  not  in  conformity  "with  their  views,  and 
which  does  not  express  the  })rinciple8  which  the  American  (iovernment  believes  to  be 
entertained  by  both  parties  to  the  negotiation,  and  which,  immediately  after  being 
signed,  would  become  the  subject  of  negotiation  with  a  view  to  its  alterati<m.  In  this 
position  they  repeat  their  readiness  to  extend  the  time  allowed  for  the  Arbitrators  to 
meet  at  Geneva,  and  they  have,  as  you  are  aware,  provided  Sir  Edward  Thornton  with 
full  powers  to  sign  a  treaty  for  this  purpose,  or  they  are  willing  to  concur  in  a  joi  nt 
application  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  once  to  adjourn  ''■»?  proceedings  of  t  he 
Arbitration,  which  they  are  advised  it  is  within  the  competence  of  tlie  Arbitrators  to 
do  upon  such  an  application  without  a  fresh  treaty. 

SCIIKNCK. 

.'J5  A— II 


m 


64C 


TKKATY    OF    WASHIX(JTON. 


No.  82. 

Mr.  Flsk  to  (Jencntl  Hchmel', 

[Tt'lcgraiii.] 

Washington,  ftune  2,  1872. 
Altlioiifjli  by  a  literal  coiistrnction  of  the  Senate  Article,  cases  of  bad 
faith  or  willful  misconduct  m.iy  be  held  to  be  within  its  scope,  it  is  in- 
conceivable that  such  cases  can  ever  be  the  subject  of  diplomatic  corre- 
spondence with  a  view  to  pecuniary  compensation  between  two  Powers 
such  as  those  now  concerned. 

FISE. 


>'o.  8;{. 


General  Schenck  to  Mr.  Fish. 
LTelcf^raiii.] 

London,  June  2,  1872.  (Received  1.20  o'clock.) 
Your  telejjram  of  yesterday  just  received.  I  will  communicate  it  to 
Lord  (Irranville  to-morrow.  jMust  I  say  it  is  tinal  ?  They  hold  here  that 
after  the  Arbitrators  have  received  the  arguments  from  the  Agents  on 
the  15th  they  may  adjourn  for  a  time,  an<l  would  doubtless  do  so  on 
Joint  request  of  the  two  Governments;  that  the  power  to  adjourn  is  in- 
cident to  the  character  of  the  Tribunal,  reference  being  had  only  to  the 
seventh  Article  of  the  Treaty,  w  hich  re«iuires  a  decision  to  be  made,  it' 
possible,  in  three  months.  In  this  view  1  certainly  concur,  but  have  not 
expressed  my  opinion  to  any  one.  If  the  ministry  were  to  enter  into 
any  such  arrangement,  putting  in  their  argument  and  trusting  to  the 
chance  of  negotiating  a  supplementary  Article  afterwards,  they  must 
expect  denunciation  in  Parliament;  but  that  would  be  their  concern, 
not  ours.  I  heard  from  l^avis  last  week  tiiat  our  argument  would  bo 
readv  by  the  15th,  and  Lord  Granville  told  me  theirs  would  be. 

SCUENCK. 


No.  84. 


Mr.  Finh  to  General  Sehenal; 
[Telegram.] 

Washington,  June  2, 1872. 
Confidential.   We  concur  in  the  opinion  that  the  Arbitrators  hjive  the 
power  to  adjourn  either  on  their  own  motion  or  on  the  motion  of  either 
party. 

If  the  arguments  be  put  in  on  both  sides  on  15th,  and  Great  Britain 
move  for  an  adjoiirnment,  this  Government  will  concur. 

FISH. 


C(UM;K.SPoxi>|;.NCI:    RKsrECTIN(i    tJENKVA    AIJIUTKATION.      547 

(Icmral  Schenck  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[Teltsyraiii.] 

London,  June  .{,  LS7l*.  (Uecclved  ll.L'."»  p.  ui.) 
I  found  this  morning  I  hiul  partly  misunderstood  Lord  (Iriinvillo. 
Her  Majesty's  Government  are  of  opinion  that  the  Arbitrators  must 
meet  on  the  liitli,  but  tiiat  it  is  not  necessary  for  tlie  Ajjents  to  i)resent 
the  arguments  at  that  time.  Such  delivery  of  arguments  they  think 
may,  by  joint  agreement,  be  postponed.  This  (ionelusion  was  under 
advice  of  !iir  lloundell  Palmer.  I  asked  Lord  Granville  if  he  would 
consider  this  point  again  when  in  Cabinet  to  djiy,  and  tell  me  how  they 
thought  the  parties  could  proceed  under  the  tifth  Article  without  such 
delivery  of  arguments.  It  seemed  to  me  that  the  Arbitrators  need  not 
necessarily  assemble  then  anj»more  than  they  did  to  receive  the  Counter 
Cases.  Perhaps,  however,  the  parties  might,  by  mutual  agreeinent, 
waive  the  ju'esentation  of  arguments  at  that  date,  being  a  matter  which 
related  not  to  the  Arbitrators,  but  to  a  duty  to  be  performed  by  their 
own  Agents. 

He  has  just  sent  me  the  following  communication  : 

[/•Jirl  oraiirilh  to  (Iciural  Svlivnck.^ 

Su{ :  In  reply  to  the  ((lU'stion  wliich  yon  jnifc  to  iiie  this  nH»inin<;,  1  have  to  state  to 
you  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  eonsiihjr  that  the  Arbitrators  ninst  no  doubt  meet 
on  the  ir>th  of  June,  but  the  liftii  Artich*  of  the  Treaty,  thonj;h  it  conteuiphites  the 
(lehvery  of  written  ar^^nments  on  that  day,  does  not  make  the  further  prosecution  of 
the  arbitration  iinpossibh^,  if  on  that  day  neither  purtif  \)rtiHontH  any  written  arfjument . 
The  Arbitrators  have  full  jiower  to  adjourn,  and  they  have  also  AiU  power  to  call,  after 
the  15th,  for  any  further  statements  or  arfjuments,  written  or  oral,  from  time  to  time 
as  they  may  think  fit.  If,  therefore,  b(»th  parties  agree  not  to  presi  lit  an^  argument 
till  a  later  day  than  the  15th,re(iuesting  the  Arbitrators  to  adjourn,  and  if  the  Arbi- 
trators should,  on  any  day  to  which  they  may  have  adjourned,  accept  the  ari;um(;nt 
which  both  parties  may  tlien  wish  to  tender  to  them,  this  will  be  (|uite  within  their 
power. 

SCHENCK. 


No.  80. 
Mr.  Fhh  to  General  SvJunck. 


No.  210. J  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  June  3,  1872. 

Sir  :  Your  dispatch  No.  233  of  the  18th  ultimo,  inclosing  copy  of 
supplement  to  the  London  Gazette  of  the  day  previous,  has  been  received. 
This  copy  of  the  Gazette  brings  to  the  Department  the  first  notice  it  has 
had  of  Earl  Granville's  note  of  the  13th  ultimo,  which  probably  appeared 
in  print,  submitted  to  the  British  public,  long  before  it  reached  Sir 
Edward  Thornton,  to  whom  it  purports  to  be  addressed. 

The  avowed  purpose  of  Earl  Granville's  note  is  to  notify  Sir  Edward 
Thornton  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  have  refrained  trom  continu- 
ing "  an  argumentative  discussion  with  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  upon  the  scope  and  intention  of  the  Articles  in  the  Treaty  of 
Washington,  relating  to  the  Arbitration  on  the  'Alabama  claims;'"  and 
to  put  him  in  possession  of  the  views  of  that  Government,  with  reference 

SCHENCK. 


r)4s 


•ii{i:atv  of  \vasiii\(;T()\. 


to  some   piissii;;('s  wiiicli  ucciir  in   my  note  'm  you  of  the  Ititli  ol'  Ajui', 
Of  coiifse  it  will  not  be  iissiimcd  tliiit   llic  oltjcct  of  its  j)ui>li('iiti(Hi   in 
<in'at  r.ritiiin,  in  iidvancc  of  its  possible  receipt  by  the  yentleiiiiin  I'm 
whose  inslnietion  it  was  wiitttMi,  had  any  «'oime('tioii  with  the  inllueiK 
inj,'  of    piiblii!  opinion   in    Europe,  or  near  the  expeeti'd  scene  of  the 
(Jeneva  Tribunal. 

It  never  was  the  desire  of  this  (lo\ernment  to  open,  mncli  less  to 
prolong,  discussion  with  her  .Majesty's  (Jovernment  upon  the  scope  and 
intention  of  the  Articles  in  theTr«'aty  of  \\'ashin<«ton  relatinj;  to  the  Arbi- 
tration on  the  Alabama  claims.  The  (lovernment  of  the  United  States 
hoped,  as  it  had  reason  to  believe,  that  Ix'fore  the  an <4nst  Tribunal,  appoint 
ed  in  a<M'ordance  with  the  ternisof  theTn'aty  of  Washinjiton  to  "examine 
and  decide"  upon  the  inatteis  in  disi)ute  between  the  United  States  and 
(Jreat  IJritain,  and  <lesi;;nated  as  the  "Alalianni  claims,"  the  Treaty  would 
be  its  own  interpi'cter.  IJestiny  upon  this  most  reasonable  conviction, 
it  has  been  the  earnest  wish  of  the"  President  (a  wish  oftiMi  exi>ress(Ml 
in  the  coirespondence  of  this  Departmen't  on  the  subject)  to  remit  all 
discussion  as  to  the  scope  and  ineanin{jf  of  tln^  Treaty  to  that  Tribunal. 
Had  this  feelinj;'  been  reciprocated  by  J I er  ]>rajesty's  Clovernment,  the 
discussion  whi<'h  lias  occuried  between  the  two  (Jovernments  upon  the 
true  meaninj;-  of  the  Treaty  inij»ht  have  been  in  a  great  measure  avoided, 
Upon  the  present  point  of  contention  between  this  Governtnent  and  that 
of  (ireat  IJritain,  namely,  whether  the  claims  for  "  uationul  losses  "  impn- 
huiy  denomiimted  "inclirect  «hunaj«es,"  are  by  the  terms  of  tlie  Treaty 
fairly  within  the  province  for  the  consideration  and  decision  of  the 
(Jeneva  Tribunal,  the  United  States  it  is  believed  will  lose  nothing  by 
the  fullest  discussion  of  the  question. 

In  my  note  to  you  of  the  Kith  of  A))ril,  I  had  occasion  to  vsay,  "It  is 
ditlicult  to  reconcile  the  elaborate  line  of  ar/jument  put  forward  by  Earl 
Granville  to  show  a  waiver  of  e'aims  for  indiiect  losses,  with  the  idea 
that  at  the  outset  of  the  negotiations  Her  Majesty's  Government  did  not 
consider  the  nnitter  of  i)ublic  or  national  injuries  as  the  basis  of  an  out 
stan<ling  claim  against  (rreat  IJritain,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States.". 
His  Lordship's  instruction  of  the  13th  ultimo,  now  before  me,  does  not 
serve  to  lessen,  much  less  to  remove,  the  difficulty  thus  suggested.  In 
this  instruction  Karl  Granville,  with  great  skill  and  ingenuity,  vecapitii 
lates  the  previous  arguments  on  the  question,  and  arranges,  with  in- 
liiute  care,  the  facts  upon  which  he  desires  that  the  propositions  ad- 
vanced by  Her  ^Majesty's  Governmt^nt  should  rest.  Passing  over  a 
ceitain  tone  of  (!riticism,  which  may  with  projjriety  be  ascribed  to  the 
pressure  of  public  business  ui)on  his  Lordship  at  the  present  moment.  1 
proceed  to  notice  some  statements  in  his  Lordship's  note,  from  which  he 
draws  inferences  in  my  opinion  wholly  unwananted  by  the  i»remises. 
I  do  this  that  you  may  be  put  in  possession,  not  only  of  all  new  i'lutts  on 
the  subject,  but  also  of  the  views  of  this  Government,  in  order  that  you 
maybe  able  to  make  such  use  of  them  in  your  future  intercourse  on  this 
subject  with  Her  Majesty's  Government  as  the  occasion  may  demand. 

Speaking  of  the  allusion  in  my  instruction  of  the  IGth  of  April  to 
Karl  Itussell's  dispatch  of  March  27,  1803,  to  Lord  Lyons,  I'^arl  Gran 
ville  says:  "Mr.  Fish  omits  the  words  ' of  which  the  Confederate  loan  is 
an  additional  proof;'  which,  taken  with  the  context,  shows  that  Mr.  Adams 
was  then  speaking  not  of  the  case  of  the  'Alabama,'  but  of  the  assist- 
ance in  money  and  materi.als,  which  he  considered  was  improperly  rei: 
dered  to  the  Confederate  States  by  blockade-running  and  the  cotton  loan." 
It  is  true  that  those  words  were  omitted;  there  was  no  reason  why  they 
should  have  been  quoted ;  they  refer  to  some  other  and  additional  proof 


fm^ 


of  Ai»ril 
edition   ill 

(Mllilll    lilt 
illllllCIK' 

M'  (»r  lilt' 
Ii    less  tn 

M'DpC  illhl 

the  Arhi 
t>(l  States 
l,i)])|i()iiit 
''('Xiiiniiif 
t.iti's  aiHl 
iity  would 
mvictioii. 
L'Xlurssnl 
I  remit  all 
Trihuiial. 
nieiit,  tlic 
upon  the 
i>  avoided, 
t  and  that 
iPs"  popu- 
lie  Treaty 
oil  of  the 
othiiijf  by 

lav.  "It  is 
(I  by  Earl 
I  the  idea 
nt  did  not 
of  an  out 
d  States.", 
does  not 
ste<l.     In 

recapitn- 
;,  with  in- 
itions  ad- 
over  a 
)ed  to  the 
nonient.  1 
which  he 
]>rennses. 
V  facts  on 

that  you 
se  on  this 
einand. 

Ai>ril  to 
arl  Gran- 
ite loan  is 
Ir.  Adams 
lie  assist- 
perly  rei: 
ton  loan." 
why  they 
)nal  proof 


( <>i;K'i:si'(t\i)i:N(i;  hkspectino  <iF,NKVA  .\i;itriiJATi(>\.     't-W) 

ot  the  eoMspiraey  whi<',li  Mr.  Achtms  was  pointing;  out,  as  tendinii'  to 
hrin;^'  on  a  Wiir  with  a  view  to  aid  the  ('onfeih'rat*;  cause.  My  objecjt 
was  noi  to  fortify  wliat  Mr.  A<hims  had  said,  l)nt  t(»  show  that  he  liid 
notilied  to  (treat  liiitain  that  her  conibict  was  aidin;;' the  Confederate 
«'anse:  with  or  witiiont  the  onutteil  words  tlie  extract  eslablishes  the 
notice.  The  ciinudati\'e  evidence  which  they  alfcrd  of  the  cr»nspii'acy 
that  .Ml',  .\danis  notilied  to  l.nrd  i{iissell  is  unimportant  to  the  notice 
jiiveji.  'I'lie  snjijit'stionof  the  omissitni  seems  to  lie  an  inj^enions  avoid- 
ance of  a  mati'i'ial  issue  in  the  ease  1»\  raisinii'  another  of  no  possiith' 
si;jinilicance. 

l5Mt  in  this  connection  it  is  dilficiilt  to  ima^rine  by  what  process  of 
divination  Lord  (lianville  assumes  that  Mr.  Adams  was  speakin;;'  with 
retereiiee  to  blockade-runniii;^',  whicli  is  not  even  alluded  to  in  liord 
IJussell's  note,  and  seems  to  be  an  interpolatiini  wholly  nnsustained  liy 
the  narrative  of  Ltu'd  liussell,  whose  general  amiability  of  <'liaiacter 
and  ti  iendsliii»  for  the  United  States  have  never  yet  subjected  him  to 
tiie  suspicion  of  withholdin;;'  anything'  tliat  nii<;ht  b(;  used  to  their  dis- 
a<lvantajfe  or  discredit.  A  perusal  of  Lord  Iiusseirs  note  (which  is 
appended  hereto,  copied  from  the  J>ritisli  iJIue  Jiook,  N'<utli  America, 
No.  1,  1804,  ]).  -)  shows  the  main  object  of  the  iiitersiew  which  Mr. 
Adams  ha<l  sou<;lit  with  liOrd  Knssell  to  have  been  the  ines'iitation  of 
a  dispatch  of  INIr.  Seward,  complaininj;  of  the  fittin<;out  an'  '  he  depreda- 
tions of  the  "Alabama"  and  tlie  "  Oreto,''  and  other  eriiisiMS,  '•)  which  the 
conversation  \vas  mainly  contined.  These  thiii«>s  Mr.  Adams  thou;^lit 
made  manifest  a  conspiracy,  of  which  the  "  (,'onfeder'te  loan  was  an 
additional  proof,"  and  he  tlius  broufi'ht  the  existeiic  ■)f  a  (;onspiracy 
with  a  view  to  prolon<finx  the  war  to  the  notice  of  tlie  Uriti  h  (io\ern- 
nient. 

1  ajipeal  to  Lord  liusselTs  note  to  determine  whether,  as  1  su|)posed, 
and  as  Lord  (rranville  denies,  ^Ir.  Adams  referred  to  the  "Alabama" 
as  anion  J"'  the  causes  teiulinfi'  to  luoduce  the  exasperation  wiiicli  nii<;ht 
lead  to  a  war  "  with  the  view  to  aid  the  Confederate  cause,"'  ami  whether, 
as  Lord  Clranville  asserts,  and  I  doubt,  Mr.  Adams  was  speakinji'  of 
'' blockaderuiinin<r."' 

If  (as  I  think  that  Lord  IJusseirs  note  establishes)  the  '•Alabama'' 
and  other  cruisers  were  the  subject  of  the  conversation,  there  was  no  occa- 
sion on  my  part  to  adduce  the  (.Confederate  loan  as  "additional  |n'oof.'' 
The  fact  that  it  is  mentioned  as  "  additional  proof"  shows  that  it  was  not 
the  main  i>roof  of  which  INlr.  Adams  had  been  speakinj;'.  Lord  (Iran- 
ville  has  unhappily  misconceived  the  subject  which  formed  the  lea<lin<4' 
tojiic  of  the  interview  between  "Slv.  Adams  and  Lord  Ifussell. 

The  depredations  of  the  cruisers  alloat,  tlie  continiuMl  buildin.iiol'  ships 
for  the  Confederates  in  British  ports,  the  manning;'  those  ships  with 
British  sailors,  and  tlu^  unconcealed  desire  on  the  pait  of  tli(>  conspira- 
tors for  the  success  of  the  ConfederatiiS,  and  for  a  monopoly  of  the  trade 
of  the  SLinthern  States:  this,  in  the  estimation  of  Mr.  Ailains,  was  the 
evidence  of  the  existence  of  the  conspirac^v  of  which  the  (Confeili'rate 


were  ueitner  or  tuein  commumcarea  to  tier  .uajesty  s  iioveniment.  ii 
his  Lordship  means  that  these  notes  were  not  ofticially  coinnmiiic  .ted  to 
his  (Tovernment  at  the  time  of  their  date,  he  is  unquestionably  ri{;lit, 
but  then  he  controverts  what  was  not  alleg^e*!.  I  had  said  "  the  olUcial 
correspondence  of  this  (lovernraent  which  was  j^nblished  and  is  within 
the  knowledge  of  Her  Majesty's  (rovernment ;"  this  Lord  (Sranville  doe.s 


Wm^iXi 


noo 


TREATY    OF    WASHIXfiTON. 


not  deny,  and  tliis  I  re-assert.  A  volume  containing:  the  notes  roCtM  rod 
to  was  placcid  in  the  possession  of  the  IJritish  Joint  C'oinniissioi»ers,  and 
was  again  iorinally  delivered  to  the  Agent  of  Her  Majesty,  at  (ieneva, 
in  December  last.  Lord  Granville  himself  niore  than  once  (piotes  from 
it,  thus  establishing  what  1  have  asserted,  that  the  conteuts  of  that 
volume  were  within  the  knowledge  of  Her  Majesty's  (lovermnent. 

Lord  (Jranville  refers  to  a  di.si)atch  to  JMr.  Seward,  dated  17th  Feb 
rnary,  18(»1),  in  which  Mr.  Keverdy  Johnson  reviews  the  obJe(;tions 
made  in  the  United  States  to  the  Convention  negotiate<l  by  him.  J  lis 
Lordship  makes  a  long  extract  from  this  dispatcii,  referring  to  "  page 
707  "as  that  on  which  it  appears.  The  two  dispatches  wliich  he  had 
intiuuited  had  not  been  communicated  to  Her  Majesty's  (rovernment. 
appear  in  the  same  volume  from  which  he  thus  quotes,  the  one  at  page 
028,  the  other  at  page  ()7,'5. 

At  the  conclusiou  of  this  extract  his  Lordship  proce«Mls :  "  If  Mr. 
Johnson  was  mistaken  in  the  view  tlius  decidedly  expressed,  it  nliglit 
be  expected  that  some  notice  would  have  been  taken  of  so  important 
an  error." 

When  it  is  remembered  that  the  Convention  of  which, Mr.  Johnson 
was  then  speaking,  and  in  the  negotiation  of  which  he  had  acted  so 
prominent  a  part,was  rejected  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  a  branch 
of  the  treaty-making  power  of  this  (lovernment,  it  can  scarcely  be  said, 
even  with  ])lausibility,  that  Mr.  Johnson's  expression  of  his  own  views, 
in  the  dispatch  from  which  Earl  (Jranville  quotes  so  liberally,  was  allowed 
to  pass  unnoticed  by  this  (lovernment.  The  vote  of  the  Senate  is  un 
derstood  to  have  sliown  oidy  one  member  who,  from  whatever  cause, 
approved  Mr.  Keverdy  Johnson's  Treaty.  The  inference  may  be  fairly 
drawn  that  no  other  Senator  shared  I\Ir.  Johnson's  views. 

The  opinion  obtained  somewhat  extensively,  in  this  country  at  least, 
that  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  did  take  a  somewhat  decided  notice 
of  the  Treaty,  and  that  in  rejecting  the  Treaty  itself,  as  the  Semite  did, 
it  swept  away  all  the  reasoning  and  argument  in  its  defense,  which 
thenceforth  needed  no  further  notice.  But  however  this  may  be,  the  dis 
patch  which  Earl  (Iranville  quotes  establishes  the  fact  that,  at  its  date, 
the  claims  which  Her  Majesty's  (Tovernment  emphns  Mr.  Johnson's  dis- 
patch to  controvert  had  been  advanced.  Historically,  therefore,  they 
were  then  known.  The  date  of  this  dispatch  is  more  that  two  years 
before  the  meeting  of  the  Joint  High  (Commission.  The  citation  of  this 
dispat(!h  by  Her  Majesty's  (rovernment  would  seem  to  bring  to  it  a 
knowledge  of  the  existence  of  these  claims  anterior  to  the  meeting  of  the 
Joint  High  Commission,  although  we  have  elsewhere  been  told  that  their 
presentation  to  that  Commission  was  a  surprise. 

Soon  after  the  reception  of  this  dispatch  of  Mr.  Johnson's  by  his  ( rov- 
ernment, he  ceased  to  be  its  representative  at  the  Court  of  St.  James. 
Those  wlio  know  Mr.  Johnson's  social  and  genial  ipialities  will  not  be 
surprised  to  find  that  Lord  Granville,  not  content  with  citing  his  official 
dispatch  in  explanation  of  the  conversation,  proceeds  to  cite  in  defense 
of  the  IJritish  side  of  the  question,  a  professioinil  letter  of  Mr.  Johnson, 
written  vseveral  months  after  his  retirement  from  public  life. 

In  an  instruction  from  this  Department  to  Mr.  Motley,  (Mr.  Johnson's 
8iiC(!essor  as  the  representative  of  this  Government,)  dated  I\Iay  1"),  18(>1». 
informing  him  of  the  then  recent  action  of  the  Semite  of  the  United  States, 
on  what  was  familiarly  known  as  the  "Johnson-Clarendon  Treaty,"  the 
viewsofthi.iGovernment  are  thus  expressed  in  relation  totheclaimsof  the 
United  States  against  the  IJritish  Government:  '•  Upon  one  point  the  Pies 
ideut  and  the  Senate  and  the  overwhelming  mass  of  the  people  are  con 


CORIJKSI'ONDEXCE    KESPECTING    (iENKVA    AKfJlTKATIOX.      5.51 


s  ivf'errod 
)iMMs,  and 
t (Jeneva, 
lotes  from 
ts  of  that 
lent. 

17th  F.'h- 
i>l)j(»(!tions 
liiin.  His 
to  ""  pa^'i' 
ch  he  had 
^eriiment, 
le  at  pa<i;e 

:  "  If  Mr. 
,  it  iilight 
important 

.  Johntsoii 
[  acted  so 
s,  a  branch 
ly  be  said, 
iwn  views, 
as  allowed 
late  is  un 
ser  cause, 
y  be  fairly 

y  at  least, 
(led  notice 
en  ate  did, 
ise,  which 
)e,  the  dis- 
t  its  date, 
nson's  dis- 
fore,  they 
two  years 
ion  of  this 
ig  to  it  a 
ing  of  the 
that  their 

V  his  (rOV- 
j>t.  James, 
ill  not  be 
lis  official 
n  <lefense 
Johnson. 

Johnson's 
1.-).  18(;j». 
<'d  States, 
eaty,"  tin' 
imsof  till' 
;thel'ies 
e  are  con 


viiiiH'd,  namely,  that  the  Convention,  from  its  character  and  terms,  or 
from  tile  time  of  its  ncj^otiation,  or  from  the  circumstances  attending 
its  negotiation,  would  not  have  removed  the  sense  of  existing  griev- 
ance, would  not  have  alforded  real,  substantial  satisf;i(;tiou  to  tlie  peo- 
ple, would  not  have  j)roved  a  hearty,  conlial  settlement  of  pending 
questions,  but  would  have  left  a  feeling  of  ilissatisfa<;tion,  inconsistent 
with  the  relations  which  the  President  desires  to  have  tirmly  established 
between  two  great  nations  of  common  origin,  ('oinmon  language,  common 
literature,  (;omnion  interests  and  objects  in  the  julvaiicement  of  the  civ- 
ilization of  the  age." 

The  action  of  the  United  States  Senate,  as  above  shown,  and  the 
expn^ssion  Just  (juoted  from  my  dispatch  of  May  1.').  1800,  to  Mr.  Mot- 
ley, furnish  a  correct  history  of  the  attitude  of  the  (rovernment  of  the 
United  States  in  relation  to  the  whole  subject,  at  a  time  contemiiorane- 
ous  with  the  expression  of  Mr.  Johnson  upon  which  Earl  (Jranville 
places  so  much  reliance.  The  support  which  Her  Majesty's  (lovern- 
ment  can  derive  from  Mr.  Johnson's  dispatch  seems  to  me  very  slender. 

To  show  that  the  United  States  continued  to  maintain  this  position 
in  relation  to  the  claims,  it  may  not  be  out  of  jilace  to  call  your  atten- 
tion to  the  language  of  my  instruction  to  Mr.  Motley  of  September  2'*, 
1809,  in  which  occurs  the  following  expression  of  the  views  then  enter- 
tained by  this  Government :  *'The  President  is  not  yet  prepared  to  pn»- 
nounce  on  the  «iaestion  of  indemnities  which  he  thinks  due  by  (h'eat 
Britain  to  individual  citizens  of  the  United  States,  for  the  destruction 
of  their  property  by  rebel  cruisers  fitted  out  in  the  ports  of  Great  Brit- 
ain. Nor  is  he  now  i)repared  to  speak  of  the  reparation  which  he  thinks 
due  by  the  British  Government  for  the  larger  account  of  the  vast  na- 
tional injuries  it  has  inflicted  on  the  Unite<l  States.  Nor  does  he  at- 
tempt now  to  measure  the  relative  effect  of  the  various  causes  of  injury, 
as  whether  by  nntimely  recognition  of  belligerency,  by  suttering  the  tit- 
ting  out  of  rebel  cruisers,  or  bj-  the  sup[)ly  of  ships,  arms,  and  munitions 
of  war  to  the  Confederates,  or  otherwise  in  whatever  manner.  *  *  * 
All  these  are  subjects  of  future  consideration,  which,  when  the  time 
for  action  shall  arrive,  the  President  will  consider,"  &c.  It  seems  strange 
that  this  language  should  have  failed  to  make  evident  the  existence  of 
a  serious  complaint  on  the  part  of  this  (Jovernment  on  account  of  the 
national  losses  and  injuries  consequent  upon  tlie  increased  rates  of  in- 
surance, the  transfer  of  the  merchant  marine  of  the  United  States  to 
(rreat  Britain,  and  the  increased  expenditure  caused  by  thi^  prolonga- 
tion of  the  war  for  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion. 

That  the  idea  of  a  claim  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  for  indirect 
damages  for  national  losses  was  even  then  neither  new  nor  obscure  in 
the  minds  of  eminent  British  statesmen,  L  need  but  refer  again  to  the 
opinions  expressed  by  Lord  Cairns  and  Professor  Bernard,  quoted  in 
my  note  of  the  IGth  of  Aprii.  I  see  no  reason  to  (pialify  what  I  then 
found  occasion  to  say:  "At  every  stage,  therefore,  of  the  proceedings, 
from  November,  1802,  when  ,ilr.  Adams  <  solicited  redress  for  the  national 
injuries  sustained,'  to  the  date  of  the  Treaty,  this  Government  has  kept 
before  that  of  Great  Britain  her  assertion  of  the  liability  of  tlu'*  latter 
for  what  are  now  termed  the  indirei^t  injuries."  Earl  (iranville  surely 
cannot  dismiss  the  uninterrupted  and  consistent  asserti«)n  of  the  claims 
of  the  United  States  against  (ireat  BriUiin  for  national  losses  siittered 
by  the  former,  in  conse(iuence  of  a  disregard  of  national  «>bligations  by 
tiie  latter. 

It  remains  to  not)  !e  one  other  passage  in  the  dispatch  of  Earl  Gran- 
ville, alluding  to  my  reference,  in  the  note  of  the  lOth  of  April,  to  the 


552 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


work  ot  rrot'essor  Bernard.  His  Lordsliip  says :  "Still  less  can  tliey 
(Her  iVIajesty's  (.Jovernineut)  admit  that  because  Mr.  Bernard,  in  the 
14th  chapter  of  his  work,  gave  certain  extracts  from  Mr.  Fish's  dis- 
patch, under  the  head  of  'Alabama  claims,'  that  dispatch  became  the 
standard  by  which  the  claims  known  as  Alabama  claims  were  to  be 
measured." 

Here  again  his  Loidship  repels  what  was  not  proposed.  Mr.  Bernard 
was  quoted  to  show  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  entered  upon  the 
negotiation  of  the  Alabama  question  with  a  knowledge  of  the  existence 
of  the  claims  of  tl»e  United  States  for  indirect  losses.  There  was  no 
suggestion  that  the  dispatch  whi<ih  Mv.  Bernard  quoted  was  to  be  a 
standard  of  measure,  but  that  the  fact  of  quoting  b^'  ^Ir.  Bernard 
showed  knowledge  on  his  part  of  the  existence  and  nature  of  claims 
which  elsewhere  was  denied.  His  Lordship  then  proceeds  :  "  It  hap- 
l>ens,  moreover,  that  in  the  extracts  given  by  ]Mr.  Bernard,  in  the  chap- 
ter to  wiiich  Mr.  Fish  refers,  the  three  passages  cited  by  Mr.  Fish  in 
his  present  dispatch  as  relating  to  indirect  injuries  ai;d  national  losses 
are  omitted." 

I  am  bound  to  suppose  that  the  repeated  apparent  denial  of  what  was 
not  asserted  is  the  result  or  consequence  of  the  haste  in  which  his  Lord- 
ship's note  was  given  to  the  piess.  In  my  dispatch  to  you  I  had  not 
said  that  the  passages  cited  by  me  were«among  the  extracts  given  by 
Mr.  Bernard  "in  the  chapter"  to  which  I  referred.  My  language  was, 
"/>t  thifi  worJc  he  summarizes  an  instruction,"  »&c.  I  have,  therefore,  to 
repeat  what  I  said,  namely,  that  the  passages  cited  by  me  api)ear  in 
Trofessor  Bernard's  work;  and  I  must  direct  your  atteiition  to  the  fact 
that,  while  Lord  Granville  tlenies  (what  was  not  asserted)  that  these 
passages  do  not  appear  in  a  certain  chapter,  he  does  not  deny  (what- 
ever may  be  the  impression  casually  produced  by  his  language)  what  I 
asserted,  namely,  that  the  i)assages  do  appear  in  Professor  Bernard's 
work.     I  refer  to  pages  492  and  41)3,  where  they  will  be  found. 

Referring  to  a  former  dispatch  of  mine,  Lord  Granville  thinks  that  it 
is  apparent  that  the  "'  vast  national  injuries; "  presented  in  it  are  ascribed 
to  other  causes  than  the  acts  committed  by  the  Confederate  cruisers,  and 
among  other  extracts  from  the  dispatches  he  quotes  me  as  saying,  "  nor 
does  he  (the  President)  attempt  now  to  measure  the  relative  effect  of 
the  various  causes  of  injury,  as  whether  by  untimely'  recognition  or 
belligerency,  by  suffering  tlie  fitting  out  of  rebel  cruisers,  or  by  the 
supply  of  ships,  arms,  and  munitions  of  war  to  the  Confederates,  or  oth- 
erwise in  whatever  manner."  With  regard  to  the  interview  of  Mr, 
Adams  with  Lord  Pussell,  in  March,  1803,  the  statement  by  the  latter 
that  the  former  had  referred  lo  the  Confederate  loan  as  "additional 
jiroof"  of  what  Mr.  Adams  had  alleged  to  exist,  has  been  advanced  to 
prove  that  Mr,  Adan.s  was  not  si)ealiing  of  the  subjexit  which  he  sought 
the  interview  to  discuss,  but  of  something  of  which  neither  he  nor  Lord 
Ilussell  made  any  mention.  Here  the  argument  api)ears  to  be  of  the 
same  nature,  that  because  some  "additional"  causes  of  complaint  other 
than  those  put  forward  before  the  Joint  High  Commission,  and  befoie 
the  Arbitrators  at  Geneva,  have  l>een  advanced  in  some  correspondence 
on  the  i)art  of  this  Government,  that  a  certain  class  of  claims  are  not 
included  under  the  head  of  "Alaljama  claims." 

Lord  Granville  says,  "  Mr.  T^sh  gives  as  a  reason  for  no  claims  for 
national  losses  having  been  'defined'  or  'formulated,'  that  Lord  Kussell 
objected  in  July,  181)3,  to  any  claims  being  put  forward." 

A  reference  to  my  dispatcli  to  you  of  the  IGth  of  April  last  shows 
liie  as  giving  a  different  reason.    I  said,  "  During  the  war  these  claims 


CORKE.srONDEXCE    RESPECTING    GEN'EVA    AKBITRATION.      ^K)3 


m 


were  coatiniiiilly  arising  and  increasing^,  and  could  not  tlien  be  defined, 
and  the  titne  for  fornuilatinj;  them  wonhl  not  arise  until  a  willinjjness  to 
enter  upon  their  consideration  arose."  Lord  Russell's  objections  were 
mentioned,  it  is  true,  in  addition  to  the  reason  above  quoted,  but 
although  "  additional,-'  they  are  not  therefore  exclusive. 

The  communications  which  the  liritish  High  Commissioners  may 
liave  made  to  their  (lovernment,  either  pending  the  negotiation  or  since, 
can  scarcely  be  urged  with  seriousness  upon  this  (Tovernment  for  ac- 
ceptance in  the  construction  of  the  Treaty.  One  of  those  gentlemen  is 
reiK)rted  assaying  recentl}^  "  that  we,  the  (Britisli)  Commissioners,  were 
distinctly  responsible  for  having  represented  to  the  (lovernment  that 
we  (they)  understood  a  promise  to  be  given  that  these  claims  were  not 
to  be  put  forward,  and  were  not  to  be  submitted  to  arbitration."  He 
does  not  sny  by  whom,  on  what  occasion,  or  in  what  manner,  such 
l>romise  was  made.  He  involves  all  his  colleagues  in  the  representation 
made  to  their  Government,  that  such  promise  had  been  made.  But  this 
seeking  aliunde,  outside  of  the  Treaty  and  of  the  Protocol,  to  estab- 
lish a  meaning  or  to  explain  its  terms,  has  had  the  effect,  which  the 
honorable  baronet  who  made  the  declaration  anticipated,  to  raise  "  a 
personal  question,"  and  1  cannot  allow  this  reference  made  by  Lord 
(iranville  to  the  information  furnished  to  Her  Majesty's  (Jovernment  by 
ITer  High  Commissioners  to  pass  without  alluding  to  the  representation 
which  Sir  Stafford  Northcote  (one  of  those  Commissioners)  says  that 
the  commissioners  are  responsible  for  having  made  to  their  Government. 

In  justice  to  myself  and  my  colleagues  on  the  American  side  of  the 
Commission,!  must  take  this  occasion  (thelirst  that  has  jiresented  itself 
since  I  have  seen  the  speech  of  Sir  Stafford  Northcote)  to  say  that  no 
such  ])romise  as  he  states  that  the  British  Commissioners  represented  to 
their  Government,  as  having  been  understood  by  them  to  be  made  by 
the  American  Commissioners,  was  in  fact  ever  made.  The  official  com- 
munications between  the  American  and  the  British  Commissioners  (as 
you  are  aware)  were  all  made  by  or  to  me  as  the  first  named  of  the 
American  Commissioners. 

1  never  made  and  never  heard  of  any  such  promise,  or  of  anything 
resembling  a  promise  on  the  subject  referred  to.  None  was  ever  nmde 
by  me,  formally  or  informally,  officially  or  unofficially  ;  and  I  feel  entire 
confidence  in  making  the  assertion  that  none  of  my  colleagues  ever 
made  any  i)romise  or  any  declaration  or  statement  api)roaching  to  a 
l»romise  on  the  subject.  AVhat  may  have  been  the  understantling  of  Sir 
Stafford  Northcote,  or  of  bis  colleagues,  I  cannot  uiulertake  to  say,  but 
that  the  American  Commissioners  gave  him  or  them  any  grounds  to  un- 
derstand that  such  a  promise  was  given,  as  he  says  tlu^y  represented  to 
their  (iovernment  as  having  been  made,  I  am  bound  most  respectfully 
but  most  emi)hatically  to  deny.  1  cannot  conceive  from  what  la?  has 
imagined  it,  as  the  only  direct  allusion  to  the  three  classes  of  claims 
(called  the  "  indirect  claims")  was  that  made  on  the  i>art  of  the  Ameri- 
can Commissioners  on  the  8th  day  of  March,  and  is  set  forth  in  the  30th 
Protocol  in  the  words  in  which  it  was  made. 

The  British  Government  has,  in  the  corresponden(!e  which  has  recently 
taken  place,  endeavored  to  construe  the  withholding  of  an  estinmte  of 
those  "indirect  claims"  in  coniu'Ction  with  a  proi>ositi(m  on  behalf  of 
this  Government,  which  was  declined  by  the  British  Commissioners, 
into  their  waiver.  I  have  already  tliscussed  that  question,  and  shall 
not  here  again  enter  upon  its  refutation.  The  Protocols  and  the  state- 
ment approved  by  the  .loint  Commission  furnish  the  substantial  part 
of  what  passed  on  that  occasion.     I  am  at  a  loss  to  conceive  what  lep- 


554 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON'. 


resentiUio!!,  outside  of  the  statement  Diaile  in  the  oOtli  i'lotocol,  Sir 
Stiiffonl  Xorthcote  can  have  made  to  his  Government.  He  refers  tti 
some  "  personal  qnestion,''  somethiii}>:  which,  nntil  the  time  of  his  ad- 
chess,  he  and  his  colleasues  had  ben-i  nnder  otUcial  restraint  from  dis- 
cussing-, bnt  the  Protocols  and  the  statement  to  whidi  I  have  referretl 
had  been  before  the  i)nblic  both  in  (Ireat  liritain  and  in  the  United 
States  for  nearly  a  year  before  his  declaration.  It  is  only  within  a  day 
or  two  that  the  Journals  containing  his  address  have  reached  me.  I 
have  this  day  Addressed  a  letter  to  yourself  and  to  each  of  our  colleagues 
on  the  Commission,  calling  attention  to  Sir  Statt'ord's  statement,  and  in 
due  time  may  make  public  the  correspondence. 

Returning  to  Lord  Granville's  dispatch  in  the  sui)plement  to  the  Lon- 
don Gazette,  I  llnd  little  else  that  has  not  already  been  discussed  or 
that  requires  further  reply. 

It  n)ay,  however,  be  noticed  that  the  remote  or  consequential  nature  of 
claims  does  not  appear  to  have  been  a  serious  objection  to  the  presenta- 
tion of  such  claims  on  the  part  of  the  British  Government  against  the 
United  States.  Lord  Granville,  in  the  dispatch  in  the  supplement, 
recalls  the  fact  that  the  British  Commissioners  repeatedly  put  forward 
the  Fenian  raid  claims,  but  not  until  the  3d  of  May,  (after  the  American 
Commissioners  had  declined  to  treat  on  them,)  did  the  British  Commis- 
sioners admit  that  a  portion  of  the  claims  were  of  a  constructive  an  1 
inftorential  character,  having  thus  persistently,  for  nearly  two  mouths, 
kept  before  the  Commissioners  those  constructive  claims.  Jt  is  nor 
necessary  now  to  consider  the  relative  admissibility  of  "constructive"' 
and  of  "  indirect "  claims,  as  the  ground  for  pecuniary  compensation 
against  a  Government,  under  the  principles  of  International  Law. 

His  Lordship  again  refers  to  the  case  i)resented  by  the  British  Gov 
ernment  to  the  Claims  Commission,  sitting  in  this  city,  for  the  Confed- 
erate cotton  loan.  While  questioning  the  accuracy  of  my  statement, 
that  "  the  United  States  cahnly  submittt  d  to  the  Commission  the  decis- 
ion of  its  jurisdiction,"  he  proceeds  to  establish  its  accuracy  by  statins 
the  motion  made  by  the  Counsel  of  this  Government  to  dismiss  the 
claim. 

If  the  British  Government  will  follow  this  example,  and  move  the 
Tribunal  at  Geneva  to  dismiss  the  claims  which  it  thinks  are  not 
included  in  th.>  submission  of  the  Treaty,  a  similar  result  may  be 
obtained,  and  the  benetits  of  the  Treaty  and  of  the  principles  of  peace 
ful  arbitration  of  grave  differences  between  nations  may  be  established. 
I  am,  sir,  vour  obedient  servant, 

HAMILTON  FISH. 


[Iiiclosiire  in  No.  8(i.I 
Karl  liunsell  to  Lord  Lyons. 

FoKKKi.N  Oi  ruK,  March  27,  H0:>. 

Mv  Loud:  Mr.  Admns  baviiijj  asked  for  an  iiitm'viow,!  luiil  iiloii;r(;()iiversiiti<)ii  witli 
liim  yesterday  at  the  Foreijiii  OHiee.  Hi?  read  iiiu  a  dispatch  of  Mr.  Siiward  on 
the  Hubjoct  of  tlie  Alabama  and  Oreto.  In  tbis  dispatcdi,  whicli  was  n(»t  iiiitVieudly 
ill  its  tone,  Mr.  Seward  coinpbiiiis  of  tlie  depredations  on  American  eoinmert'c 
committed  by  vessels  fitted  ont  in  British  ports,  and  manned,  for  the  most  part,  by 
British  sailors.  He  allmlos  to  the  stron;r  feeling  e.vcitcd  in  the  United  States  by 
the  destruction  of  her  tradiiijr  vessels  and  their  cargoes.  He  repeats  the  conipluinr 
cnninion  in  America,  that  En<;land  is  at  war  with  the  United  States,  while  the  United 
States  were  not  at  war  with  England.  He  expresses  his  hope  that  Great  Britain,  in 
exeention  of  her  o»vn  laws,  will  put  an  end  to  the  litting  ont  of  sneh  vessels  to  prey  on 
the  eoninierce  of  a  friendly  nation.     I  said  tliat  the  phrase  that  England  was  at  war 


COnKK.SI'OXUKNX'E    RESPKCTI\(i    GENEVA    AUUITRATIO.N. 


55') 


ill 


witli  Aiiu'iicit,  but  Aniericii  whs  not  at  wiir  with  Eiifjland,  was  rather  a  limine  of  rhot- 
oric  than  a  true  description  of  facts.  That  thi^  facts  wcro  that  two  vessels,  tlie  Oretu 
ami  the  Ahibauui,  liad  ehuletl  the  ojieratioii  of  the  Forei^jn-EiilistuKMit  Act,  and  liad, 
against  the  will  and  purpose  of  tlie  British  Goverunuint,  niaile  war  upon  AtncriiMn 
commerce  in  the  Aiuerican  seas.  That  the  tittiuy;  out  of  the  Alabama,  the  oix^ration 
aj^ainst  which  the  Foreij^u-EolistnuMit  Act  was  especially  dire(!ted,  was  carrietl  on  in 
l'ortu>;uese  waters  at  a  >jreat  distance  from  any  Ihitish  i)ort.  That  the  most  Htrin;^»!iit 
orders  had  been  <>iven  lonj;  ago  to  w.itch  the  proceedings  of  those  wiio  might  bo  sus- 
pecred  of  litting  out  vtissels  of  war  for  Confederate  purpos  -s.  That  if  there  were  six 
vessels,  as  it  was  alh'ged,  fitting  out  iu  British  ports  for  sucli  purposes,  let  evi<lence  be 
forthcoming,  and  the  Goveriuu(Mit  would  not  hesitate  to  stop  the  vessels,  and  to  bring 
the  offenders  before  a  court  of  justicti.  That  Mi'.  Adams  was  no  doubt  awan?  that  the 
Government  must  proceed  according  to  the  regular  process  of  law  and  upon  sworn 
tt'stimouy. 

Mr.  Adams,  on  the  other  hand,  dwelt  ou  the  novelty  and  enormity  of  this  s]»ecies  of 
warfare.  He  said  that  if  a  belligerent  could  lit  out  in  the  ports  of  a  neutral  swift 
armed  vessels  to  prey  upon  the  couunerc(f  of  its  adversary,  the  commerce  of  that  bel- 
ligerent must  be  <lestroyed,  and  a  new  I'nd  terrible  (;lfcment  of  warfare  would  be  intro- 
«luced.  He  was  sure  that  England  would  not  suffer  such  conduct  on  the  part  of  France, 
nor  France  on  the  part  of  England.  He  should  be  sorry  to  see  letters  of  mari|ne  is- 
sued by  the  Fresident;  but  there  might  be  uo  better  resource  than  such  a  measure. 

I  said  I  would  at  once  suggest  a  better  measure.  Mr.  Seward  had  said  to  I^ord 
Lyons  that  the  crews  of  privateers  had  this  advantage — that  they  reaped  tht^  wlnde 
benefit  of  the  prizes  they  took,  whereas  the  crews  of  men-of-war  were  entitled  to  only 
half  the  value  of  the  prizes  they  took.  Let  the  President,  I  said,  offer  a  liigher  reward 
for  the  capture  of  the  Alabama  and  Oreto  to  the  crews  of  men-of-war  than  even  the 
entire  value  of  those  vessels.  liet  him  oft'er  double  their  value  iis  a  gratuity,  and  thus 
confine  his  action  to  ofttcers  and  men  of  the  United  States  Navy,  over  whom  he  could 
keep  a  control,  and  who  were  amenable  to  the  laws  which  govern  an  honorable  profes- 
sion. But  what  could  Mr.  Adams  ask  of  the  British  Government  f  What  was  his  pro- 
posal ' 

Mr.  Adams  said  there  was  one  thing  which  might  be  easily  done.  It  was  supposed 
the  British  Government  were  indifferent  to  these  notorious  violations  of  their  own  laws. 
Let  them  declare  their  ctmdeuimition  of  all  such  infractions  of  law. 

With  respect  to  the  law  itself,  Mr.  Adams  said  either  it  wassutticient  for  the  purposes 
of  neutrality,  and  then  let  the  British  Government  enforce  it,  or  it  was  insutlicieni,  aud 
then  let  the  British  Government  apply  to  Parliament  to  amend  it. 

I  said  that  the  Cabinet  were  of  opinion  that  the  law  was  sulHcient,  but  that  legal 
evidence  could  not  always  be  procured  ;  that  the  British  Government  had  done  every- 
thing in  its  power  to  execute  the  law  ;  but  I  admitted  that  the  cases  of  the  Alabama 
and  Oreto  were  a  scandal,  and  in  some  degree  a  reproach  to  our  laws.  Still,  I  said  it 
was  my  belief  that  if  all  the-assistance  given  to  the  Federals  by  British  subjects  and 
British  munitions  of  war  \ver.e  weighed  against  similar  ai<l  given  to  the  Confederates, 
the  balance  would  be  greatly  in  favor  of  the  Federals. 

Mr.  Adams  totally  denied  this  proposition.  But  above  all,  he  said,  there  is  a  mani- 
fest conspiracy  in  this  country,  of  which  the  Confederate  loan  is  an  additional  i)roof, 
to  produce  a.  state  of  exasperation  iu  America,  and  thus  bring  on  a  war  with  Great 
Britain,  with  a  view  to  aid  the  Confederate  cause,  and  secure  am(»nopoly  of  the  trade 
of  the  Southern  States,  whose  independence  these  conspirators  hoped  to  establish  by 
these  illegal  and  unjust  meswures.  He  hud  worked  to  the  best  of  his  power  for  peace, 
but  it  had  become  a  most  dilticnlt  task. 

Mr.  Ada:nsfuMy  deserves  the  character  of  having  always  labored  for  peace  between 
our  two  nations,  nor,  I  trust,  will  his  efforts  and  those  of  the  two  Governments  fail  of 
success. 

I  am,  &c., 

RUSSELL. 


'*  ' 


No.  87. 

Mr.  Fish  to  General  t^chenek. 

[Telegram.] 

Washington,  June  4,  1872. 

The  Govevuraentoftlie  United  States  differs  entirely  from  the  opinion 
expressed  in  Lord  Granville's  note  to  you,  that  it  is  not  necessary  for 


biid 


TREATY    OK    WASHINGTON. 


the  A«jent8  to  ]>resont  tho  aigninonts  of  the  respective  (iovonmient.s  on 
the  l.jth. 

The  fifth  Article  of  the  Treaty  requires  that  the  ar^iinienth  be  presented 
within  a  specified  time,  which  time  will  expire  on  the  loth. 

Being  a  treaty  recpiirement,  the  Executive  Department  of  the  (lov- 
ernment  cannot  depart  from  its  obligations,  and  has  not  the  i>ower  to 
consent  to  a  change  of  its  terms. 

If  an  adjournment  is  contemplated  by  Great  Britain,  with  the  idea  of 
future  negotiation,  it  is  right  that,  with  reference  to  the  Senate  Article, 
it  should  be  understood  that  this  Government  cannot  negotiate  on  a 
])roposition  wiiich  involves  the  i«lea  that  it  may  be  guilty  of  intentional 
ill  faith,  or  of  willfid  violation  of  its  international  duties,  or  that  it  re- 
gards such  acts  on  the  i)art  of  another  I'ower  tiie  subject  of  compensa- 
tion by  the  payment  of  daioages  in  money. 

Fisn. 


Lrmni  ISritish  I'Aiir  Jiook  "  N«irth  Aiiieiica,"  No.  11,  (l^^T'i,)  \k  :?r.] 

No.  88. 
Memoyutidnm  read  by  Lord  (iranvUle  in  the  House  of  Lords. 

1  have  spoken  to  General  Schenck  as  to  the  annoyance  which  has  been 
felt  in  and  out  of  Parliament  at  the  publication  in  the  United  States  of 
the  papers  submitted  to  the  Senate  in  their  secret  session.    . 

1  tohl  him  that,  for  obvious  reasons,  I  much  regretted  it,  but  that  1 
believed  that  it  was  no  act  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

Sir  E.  Thornton  had  informed  me  that  these  papers  had  been  surrep- 
titiously obtained.. 

General  Schenck  told  me  that  he  believed  that  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  had  not,  through  any  of  its  De[)artments — the  President, 
the  Senate,  or  the  Secretary  of  State — been  a  party  to  the  publication  ot 
that  correspondence.  It  appeared  to  have  got  out  surreptitiously  through 
the  enter])rise  (if  it  may  be  called  by  so  innocent  a  name)  of  the  news- 
pai)ers. 

I  have  also  spoken  to  General  Schenck,  ami  alluded  to  the  unfavor- 
able impression  which  has  been  created  by  certain  passages  in  that  cor- 
resi)ondence  wherein  ^Ir.  Fish  declares  the  determination  of  the  Presi- 
dent to  maintain  tlu^.  indirect  claims  before  the  Tribunal  of  Genev'a.  1 
told  General  Schenck  that,  from  the  various  conversations  which  1  have 
held  with  him,  and  from  his  written  communications,  I  have  been  led  to 
believe  that  the  position  of  the  United  States  was  this: 

The  President  held  tiiat  the  indirect  claims  were  admissible  under  the 
Treaty;  that  the  Treaty  was  made  ami  ratified  in  that  sense;  and  that, 
therefore,  although  he  might  by  interchange  of  notes  or  otherwise,  agree 
not  to  ])ress  for  compensation  for  those  claims,  yet  as  being  within  the 
scope  of  the  Treaty,  it  was  not  in  his  power  to  withdraw  them — that  could 
only  be  done  by  the  exercise  of  the  full  Treaty-making  power,  including 
the  concurrence  of  the  Senate ;  that  it  was  for  this  purpose  that  the 
J'resident  preferred,  instead  of  an  interchange  of  notes,  that  Her 
Majesty's  Government  should  adopt  a  supplementary  Article,  which  for 
some  sutiicient  consideration  might  enable  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  to  declare  that  they  would  nnike  no  claim  for  such  losses,  and 
that  the  Arbitrators  wouhl  thereby  be  prevented  from  entertaining  these 
indirect  claims. 


COKRESPONDENC'E    RESl'ECTINCJ    (lENEVA    AltMilTlJATlUN.      o")? 

General  Scheiiek  iiit'onned  me  that  he  agreed  witli  ineiu  my  coiistrnc- 
tion  of  what  had  passe*!,  and  I  have  submitted  to  him  this  rei)ort  of 
oar  r^nversatiou. 

I  re  id  this  in  the  House  of  Lords  last  night. 

FoREKJN  Office,  June  4,  1872. 


Xo.  .S!>. 
ftencrni  ^clienrlx  to  Mr.   Fish. 

[Tfli'graiii.] 

London,  June  5,  1872.    (Received  at  10,4.">  a,  m.) 

Opposition  members  in  Parliament  have  strange  and  unworthy  suspi- 
cions and  fears  that  tiie  last  clause  of  the  Article,  although  in  the  lan- 
guage of  their  own  (iovernment,  is  not  explicit  enough  to  prevent  the 
indirect  clafms  from  being  again  brought  forward.  Might  we  not  otter 
that  if  this  Government  will  accept  the  Senate  language  for  the  expres- 
sion of  the  rule, we  will  agree  to  the  last  clause  of  their  form,  as  com- 
municated to  you  in  my  telegram  of  the  3lst  May,  adding  thereto  the 
words  "but  will  thereupon  abandon  those  several  enumerated  claims  as 
a  cause  of  difference  between  the  two  countries  to  be  considered  ]>y  the 
Arbitrators  in  making  their  award.'' 

SCHKXCK. 


Xo.  WK 

^f^'.  Fish  to  General  SchencI:. 

[Telegvaiii.] 

AVasiiinoton,  June  o,  1872. 

We  cannot  agree  to  the  suggestion  in  your  telegram  of  this  date. 
This  Government  deals  with  the  British  ( rovernment,  and  not  with  oppo- 
sition members  of  Parliament.  If  that  Government  adopts  the  unworthy 
suspicions  and  fears  referred  to  in  your  telegram,  and  advances  them  as 
reasons  for  modifying  the  proposed  Article,  or  suggests  that  this  Gov- 
ernment will  not  in  good  faith  act  upon  the  agreement  contained  therein, 
all  further  negotiations  must  cease  at  once. 

If  it  does  not  adopt  or  entertain  those  suspicions,  there  is  no  reason 
for  proposing  to  alter  the  language  "/hich  was  proposed  by  itself,  has 
been  accepted  by  us,  and  which  is  sufficiently  explicit. 

You  may  say  that  this  Government  regards  tiie  new  rule  contained 
in  the  proposed  Article  as  the  consideration,  and  will  accept  it  as  a  tinal 
settlement  of  the  three  classes  of  the  indirect  claims  put  forth  in  our 
Case,  to  which  they  objected. 

It  is  useless  to  expect  that  any  change  can  be  made  in  the  Article  as 
agreed  to  by  the  Senate.  A  treaty  in  the  words  which  the  Senate  luul 
agreed  upon  could  be  ratified  by  that  body  without  debate  and  in  a  few 
minutes.  Any  change,  however  immaterial,  would  involve  discussion 
and  debate,  and  in  the  crowded  state  of  their  business  would  itievital)ly 
lead  to  the  defeat  of  the  Treaty. 


1;;-' 


r.n 


58 


TKPUTY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


We  think,  also,  that  this  Government  has  made  a  large  concession  for 
the  sake  of  maintaining  the  important  principles  involved  in  the  Treaty. 
It  can  niake  no  more. 

FISH. 


No.  91. 
General  Schenck  to  Mr.  Fish. 

LTelegrain.— Extract.] 
London,  June  C,  1872.    (Received  o  p.  m.) 

Your  telegram  of  yesterday  received  this  morning. 

*  #''»  »  #  *  * 

You  will  do  me  the  justice  to  believe  I  have  had  no  exchange  of  views 
w  ith  anybody  here  but  the  Government,  through  the  proj)er  channel.  1 
must  also  do  justice  to  them ;  they  have  not  adopted  or  sympathized 
with  the  fears  and  suspicions  of  others  in  regard  to  the  last  clause  of 
proposed  Article,  but  defended  it  as  sufticient.  I,  of  course,  would  have 
resented  any  intimation  from  them  that  my  Government  could  jwssibly 
act  in  bad  faith. 

I  knew  your  earnest  desire  to  save  the  Treaty.  I  knew  that,  for  the 
consideration  expressed  in  the  rule  as  amended  by  the  Senate,  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  intended  to  abandon  altogether  the  three 
classes  of  indirect  claims,  and  although  I  knew  the  difficulty  of  opening 
the  main  question  in  the  Senate,  I  thought  they  might  at  once  agree  to 
show  their  frien<lly  and  sincere  purpose  by  expressing  that  intention, 
even  more  distinctly  than  had  been  asked  or  needed,  if  by  so  doing  their 
own  expression  of  the  rule  could  be  secured.  Late  last  night,  I  received 
from  Lord  Grain  ille,  after  a  long  Cabinet  session,  three  note?,,  which  1 
send,  but  to  which  I  have  not  replied.  I  will  see  him  immediately,  and 
comnumicate  your  views  as  to  the  uselessness  of  expecting  change  in 
the  Senate  Article,  and  will  probably  telegraph  you  again  to-day. 

The  first  note  is  as  follows : 

[_JCai'l  Granville  to  General  Scheiiek.'\ 

8iii:  I  laid  before  tlio  Cabinet  the  tclcjirapliic  message  tioin  Mr.  Fisli,  wbicli  you 
coininiinicated  to  nie  on  the  3d  instant.  That  luessajjie  is  only  in  answer  to  a  portion  of 
the  objections  raised  by  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  the  alterations  in  the  draught  Ar- 
ticle proposed  by  the  Senate,  ami  does  not  notice  the  other  points  to  which  I  called 
your  attention  in  my  letter  of  the  28th  ultimo,  and  which  were  intended  to  show  that 
the  etiect  of  those  alterations  is  to  transfer  the  ap])licationof  the  adjectives  "indirect" 
and  "  remote  "  from  one  subject  with  reference  to  which  they  have  been  used  in  the  re- 
tent  correspoiideuce,  viz,  claims  made  as  resulting  "from  the  acta  committed"  by  certain 
vessels,  to  a  different  subject,  viz,  those  made,  as  resulting  from  "  the  failure  to  obsm-re 
neutral  ohligationn."  It  is  evident  that  a  loss  v/hich  isdiretit  and  immediate  with  refer- 
ence to  the  former  subject  may  be  indirect  and  remote  with  reference  to  the  latter,  and 
this  appears  to  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  be  actually  the  case  with  respect  to  the 
claims  which  it  is  assumed  the  Goverumoit  of  the  United  States  still  intend  to  make 
befV>re  the  Arbitrators. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  must  see  that  it  is  impossible  for  Her  Maj- 
esty's Government  to  authorize  Her  Majesty's  Minister  at  Washington  to  sign  a  treaty, 
the  words  of  which  appear  to  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  say  one  thing  upon  a  mere 
understanding  to  the  contrary  effect. 

The  second  note  is  as  follows: 

[Earl  Granrille  to  General  Schenck.'] 

Siii:  There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  between  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
and  Her  Majesty's  (Jctvernnient  as  to  the  necessity  of  presenting  the  written  or  printed 


corrj:spondence  respecting  (JENEVA  ARUITKATION.     fh)d 


essioii  for 
le  Tretity. 

FISH. 


5  p.  m.) 


B  of  views 
lannel.  I 
upatbized 
clause  of 
ould  have 
1  i)ossibly 

it,  for  tlie 
,  tbe  Gov- 
tbe  tbree 
f  opening 
I  agree  to 
intention, 
sing  tbeir 
[  received 
whicb  I 
itely,  and 
•change  in 


iir;;iuuuiit8  on  the  l.'>th  of  Juno.  I  beir  to  sug^eHt  to  you  Mint  the  flt'tU  Articlo  ih 
ilirectory;  it  speaks  of  Humotliing  which  it  Nhull  bo  the  «luty  of  tlie  A;;«Mits  of  the 
two  Governiuents  to  do  within  a  certain  time ;  it  does  not  say  that  the  'I'reaty  is  to 
hipsc  if  this  duty  is  neglected  or  not  perft>rnie(l  by  the  Agents  or  Agent  of  botli  Uov- 
ernuients,  or  of  either  of  them.  It  would  hardly  bo  suggested  that  the  Tn^aty  would 
lapse  if  one  only  of  the  two  Agents  omitted  to  lodge  a  written  or  printed  argument, 
such  as  this  Artiulc  contemplates,  yet  there  is  no  more  reason  for  saying  that  such  a 
written  or  printed  argument  to  be  then  delivered  is  a  nine  qua  tion  of  tlie  Treaty  if  both 
Agents  omit  it  than  if  only  one  does  so.  Tlio  Article  is  in  its  nature  one  of  procedure 
only  for  tiio  mutual  information  (it  may  be)  of  tlie  parties,  and  entirely  for  the  assist- 
ance of  the  Arbitrators,  but  mainly  for  the  benetit  and  advantage  of  the  parties  them- 
selves.  who,  in  such  a  matter,  may  or  may  not  choose  to  avail  themselves  of  it,  nor 
would  any  practical  inconvenience  or  disadvantage  arise  to  either  party  (in  case  the 
arbitration  jnoceed)  from  an  agreement  not  to  jtresent  such  arguments  until  a  later  date, 
the  Arbitrators  having  full  pow«'r  at  any  later  date  to  admit  such  written  or  oral  argu- 
ments as  they  may  think  fit.  Jler  Majesty's  Government  would  iiiakti:  no  ditticulty  as 
to  a  suitable  arrangement  for  the  presiMitation  of  the  argiuneiits  if  a  Convention  were 
signed  by  Mr.  Fish  and  Sir  Edward  Thornton  and  ratified  by  the  Senate,  although 
there  was  not  time  for  the  nitititiations  to  bu  e  rchanged  in  London  previously  to  the 
ir>th  of  June. 


Third  note  thus: 


[Eurl  Graiirille  to  (ien.rul  S-hincl.} 


Sii{ :  I  have  to  state  to  you  that  with  the  view  of  obviating  the  ditticulty  con- 
nected with  the  meeting  of  the  Arbitrators  at  Genevii  on  the  1.'>th  instant,  anil  the  pre- 
sentation of  the  written  or  priiited  argument  under  the  fifth  Article  of  the  Treaty  on 
that  day.  Her  Majesty's  Goveniiient  are  still  ready  either  to  agree  in  an  application  to 
the  Arbitrators  on  the  l.'jth  to  adjourn  at  once  without  the  presentation  of  the  argument 
of  either  Government,  or  to  ctmclude  a  new  arrangement  with  the  treaty-making 
power  of  the  United  States  for  the  enlargement  of  the  time  ;  or,  instead  of  the  amend- 
ments to  the  Treaty  Article  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  last  proposed,  they  are 
willing  to  conclude  it  with  the  following  additions:  First,  to  insert  after  the  paragr.aph, 
as  altered  by  the  Senate,  the  words,  "  the  remote  or  indirect  losses  mentioned  in  this 
agreement,  being  losses  arising  remotely  or  indirectly  from,  and  not  directly  from,  acts 
of  belligerents."  Second,  to  insert  after  this  paragraph  another  paragraph  :  "  further, 
the  stipulations  of  this  Convention  as  to  future  conduct  have  no  reference  to  acts  of 
intentional  ill  faith  or  willful  violation  of  international  duties."  The  objections  to  nego- 
tiating on  a  proposition  which  involves  the  idea  that  either  country  may  Its  guilty  of 
intentional  ill  faith  or  willful  violation  of  its  international  duties  might  be  mot  by  such 
a  declaration  as  that  proposed  in  the  second  of  these  additions  being  inserted  in  the 
Treaty  Article,  or,  if  the  United  States  should  prefer  it,  by  an  interchange  of  notes, 
aitpioved  by  tlic  Senate  at  the  time  of  ratification. 

schp:nck. 


which  you 
ii  portion  of 
Iranght  Ar- 
ch I  called 
show  that 
"indirect" 
d  in  the  re- 
by  certain 
e  to  observe 
with  refer- 
latter,  and 
pect  to  the 
id  to  make 

r  Her  Maj- 
jn  a  treaty, 
pen  a  mere 


ited  States 
or  printed 


No.  02. 

General  Hchenck  io  Mr.  Fish. 

[Telt'gram.] 

London,  June  C,  1872.    (Received  7.2J  p.  m.) 

Since  my  former  telegram  to-day  I  bave  seen  Lord  Granville  and 
stated  to  him  that  it  is  useless  to  expect  that  any  change  can  be  made 
in  the  Article  as  agreed  to  by  the  Senate,  and  I  communicated  to  him 
what  you  authorized  me  to  say,  that  our  Government  would  regard  tbe 
new  rule  as  consideration  for  and  settlement  of  the  three  classes  of  in- 


oOO 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


direct  claims.     I  tboujj^lit  it  best  to  jmt  that  part  of  my  commiiiiicatinn 
in  formal  writinnf  and  have  liuiuled  him  a  note  us  follows: 

Ideiiertil  Sdieiick  to  Karl  Uruiirillt:'] 

My  IiO|{i>;  III  tilt!  i-onvciHiitimi  W(»  had  yestenliiy  iiiiil  wliicli  Wiis  ri'siiincil  MiIn 
nioiniiif?,  you  Htatftd  to  1110  that  I  lor  Majesty's  (iovoiiiiiit'iit  hav<!  always  thoiij^lit  the 
lan^ua^o  ])ri)|ioHcd  by  tlioin  in  tlio  tIrauKlit  Articlo  as  it  staiiils  siiHioiont  for  tho  piirposti 
of  ri'tiiovhig  and  iiiittiii^  an  end  to  all  iluinand  on  the  ))art  of  the  United  Htutivs  in  n-- 
spec't  to  those  indirect  elainiH  which  they  put  forth  in  their  Case  at  (Jeneva,  and  to  the 
adinissihility  of  whieh  Her  Majosty'a  Cioveriinieiit  have  objected,  but  that  there  wen- 
those  who  doubteil  wliether  the  terms  used  were  explicit  eiioiij{h  to  make  that  perfectly 
ch'ar  and  to  prevent  those  same  claims  from  beiiijr  put  forward  ajjain.  I  concurred 
with  you  in  your  view  as  to  the  Hutliciency  of  the  lana;uiij;e  use<l  in  that  clause  of  the 
)>i'o|>osed  Article,  niiil  which  the  (Jovernmeiit  of  the  United  States  had  accepted,  and  I 
re]ielled  the  idea  that  anybody  should  think  it  jiossible  that  the  (Tovernment  of  the 
United  States,  if  they  should  yield  th«>se  claims  for  a  consideration  in  a  settlement  be- 
tween the  two  countries,  would  seek  to  briiiji;  them  up  in  the  future  or  would  insist 
that  they  were  still  before  the  Arbitrators  for  their  consideration.  I  am  now  author- 
ize<l,  in  u  telejjraidiic  disjiatch  received  to-day  from  Mr.  Fish,  to  say  that  the  G<)verii- 
intMit  of  the  United  States  rejjards  the  new  rule  contained  in  the  proposed  Article  as 
the  consideration  for  and  to  be  accepted  as  a  Hiial  settlement  of  the  three  classes  ot" 
the  indirect  <'lainis  put  forth  in  the  ('as*'  of  tlic  United  States,  to. which  the  Ciovern- 
iiieiit  of  (Jreat  Hritaiii  Iiave  objected. 

SCnENCK. 


No.  1»3. 
My.  Fink  to  iiemral  ISvhencl: 


[Telejjraiii. — Kxtract.] 

Wasiiinotox,  June  7,  1872. 

Your  telegrams  of  yesterday  received  last  evening.  I  have  been 
quite  ill  and  unable  to  reply  sooner  or  fuller. 

The  first  criticism  on  the  language  of  the  £^:'ate  amendment  to  the 
proposed  Article  is  regarded  as  hypercritical  and  strained.  It  is  so  re- 
garded here  generally,  and  a  discussion  upon  it  in  the  Senate  or  in  thi' 
l)res8  would  be  inexpedient  and  would  not  tend  to  advance  a  settlement. 

The  Senate  is  very  impatient  for  adjournment;  and  the  Senate,  the 
public,  and  the  press  are  impatient  over  the  delays,  and  what  they  re- 
gard as  either  captious  or  dilatorj^  objections  and  proposals  to  amend  or 
explain  what  has  been  intended  and  proposed  in  the  most  perfect  good 
faith. 

The  new  xVrticle  can  be  ratitied,  as  I  said  in  a  recent  telegam ;  but  if 
amendments  be  proposed  or  explanatory  notes  requiring  the  Senate's 
approval  ar»-  submitted,  it  will  be  impossible  to  obtain  ratification.  To 
insist  upon  any  such  course  is  to  defeat  the  Article. 

This  Government  cannot  adopt  the  argument  of  Lord  Granville  re- 
specting the  putting  in  of  the  arguments  of  both  Governments  on  the 
lilth.  We  think  the  Treaty  requires  it  to  be  done,  and  that  the  require- 
ments can  be  dispensed  with  only  by  a  treaty. 

The  Senate  will  adjourn  on  Monday.  I  see  no  possibility  of  an 
agreement  upon  anytliing  else  than  the  Article  as  agreed  to  by  the 
Senate. 

FISH. 


:niiciltin;i 


lou^lit  till* 

tuttvs  in  M'- 
aiul  to  till- 
tliorc  \v«Mf 
it  perfectly 
coiiciirn'd 
anise  ut'  tlif 
ptcd,  and  I 

llUIlt  of  till' 

Moinuiit  1(1'- 
oiild  insist 
low  anthoi- 
ho  Govoiii- 
l  Article  iis 
}  classes  of 
he  tiovern- 

KNCK. 


,  1S72. 
rtve  been 

iiit  to  the 
is  so  re- 
or  ill  the 
ttleiueiit. 
nate,  the 
they  re- 
{uneiid  or 
feet  good 

II ;  but  if 

Senate's 

;iou.    To 

iiville  re- 
;s  oil  tlie 
e  require- 

ty  of  an 
0  by  the 

* 
FISH. 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA   ARBITRATION.      561 

No.  94. 

Oeneral  Schenck  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[Telegram.] 

London,  June  7, 1872.    (Received  7  p.  m.) 

I  have  just  received  the  foUowiDg  from  Lord  (jranville : 

I  Earl  Granville  to  General  Sohenck.'] 

Sir  :  In  a  telegram  which  I  have  thia  morning  received  from  Sir  Edward  Thornton 
he  remarks  with  reference  to  the  flret  of  the  two  passages  which,  in  my  letter  to  you 
of  the  5th  instant,  I  stated  that  Her  Mt^esty's  Government  proposed  to  insert  in  the 
Article,  in  lieu  of  the  amendments  last  proposed  by  them,  that  Mr.  Fish  had  frequently, 
in  conversation  with  him,  objected  to  the  use  of  the  word  "  belligerent,"  and  wishes 
that  indirect  claims  arising  out  of  acts  committed  by  persons  other  than  recognized 
belligerents,  as  well  as  belligerents,  should  be  agreed  to  be  not  admissible  for  the 
future.  If  Mr.  Fish  should  still  entertain  the  same  opinion,  Her  Mi^jesty's  Government 
would  be  quite  content  that  the  passage  in  question  should  run  thus:  "The  remote  or 
indirect  losses  mentioned  in  this  agreement,  being  losses  arising  remotely  or  indirectly, 
and  not  directly  from  acts  of  war." 

I  only  add  that  I  have  given  Lord  Granville  no  ground  for  believing 
that  you  will  assent  to  any  expression  of  the  rule  except  that  of  the 
Senate  amendment. 

SCHENCK. 


No.  95. 

Mr.  Fish  to  Oeneral  ScJienck. 

[Telegram.] 

Washington,  June  8, 1872. 
The  reference  to  anj^  conversation  with  Thornton  is  unjustified.  I 
have  invariably  told  him,  as  I  have  told  you,  that  it  is  useless  to  discuss 
amendments  to  the  proposed  Article.  In  my  telegram  of  31st,  I  said 
the  British  amendment  left  a  large  class  of  very  probable  cases  unpro- 
vided for.  In  conversation  with  Thornton  I  told  him  the  same,  and  in- 
dicated some  of  those  cases  arising  from  the  use  of  the  word  "  bellige- 
rent," but  lindicatedno  change  that  was  desired  by  me  or  by  this  Gov- 
ernment. I  thought  the  amendment  proposed  objectionab'^  and  the 
last  suggested  amendment  in  telegram  of  yesterday  does  not  remove 
the  objection,  and  I  refer  to  my  telegram  of  5th  and  repeat  emphatically 
the  last  clause. 

FISH.    . 


No.  96. 

Oeneral  Schenck  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[Telegram.] 

London,  June  8, 1872. 
I  received  your  telegram  of  yesterday  early  this  morning,  and  com- 
municated it  immediately  to  Lord  Granville.    I  supposed  any  new  pro- 
36  a— II 


" 


5G2 


TREATY    OF    WASHIN(JTON. 


posals  tbia  Governraeiit  might  make,  or  any  attempt  to  arrive  at  agree- 
ment after  that,  wouUl  be  necessarily  at  Washington  between  yon  and 
Sir  Edward  Thornton,  nnder  such  instructions  as  he  might  receive.  I 
thought  there  was  no  room  for  new  suggestions,  but  this  evening  Lord 
Granville  sends  me  the  following : 

[Earl  GranvUh  to  ilineral  Schinck.} 

Sir  :  It  appears  to  Ilcr  Majt'Sty's  Governnicnt,  from  n  rovimv  of  the  corn-spoiidt'iict! 
Itetwoentho  two  GoveruuiciitH,  tliut  an  agreuiueiit  uii  the  Hiip))leiiiuiital  Articlu  ini^lit 
probably  be  arrived  at  if  Hutticiout  time  were  jriven  for  diHciiHHiun.  If,  tbereforo,  the 
Treaty  la  to  be  maintained,  an  adjouriimeut  of  tlie  meotiiif;  of  tbe  Arbitrators  from  the 
15th  instant  has  become  absolutely  necessary.  With  this  view,  I  have  the  h«»nor  to 
propose  that  on  the  meetinf;  of  the  Arbitrators  on  that  day  a  joint  application  sliai '  be 
made  for  an  adjournment  for  eight  months.  If  the  (Sovernment  of  tho  United  States 
concur  in  making  an  application  for  adjournment,  it  is  the  intention  of  Her  Majesty's 
Government  to  deliver  to  the  Arbitrators  on  the  15th  instant  the  summary  of  their 
argument  nnder  th»  fifth  Article  of  the  Treaty,  accompanied  by  a  declaration,  of  which 
I  have  the  honor  to  iucloseyou  a  copy  for  tluMnformation  of  your  Government. 

"  Sketch  of  draught  note  in  presenting  summary. 

"The  undersigned  Agent  of  Her  British  Majesty  has  the  honor  to  deliver  herewith 
to  Count  Sclopis,  &.c.,  the  printed  argument,  sliowing  the  points  and  referring  to  the 
evidence  on  which  the  Government  of  Her  itritaunic  Majesty  relies,  as  required  by  tho 
fifth  Article  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington.  The  undersigned  is  instructed  by  the  Gov- 
ernment which  he  represents  to  state  that  the  printed  argument  is  only  delivered  to  the 
Tribunal  conditionally  on  the  adjournment,  requested  in  the  note  which  he  had  the 
honor  to  address  to  the  Tribunal  this  day  jointly  with  the  Agent  of  the  United  States, 
being  carried  into  efl'ect,  and  subject  to  the  notice  which  the  undersigned  has  the  honor 
hereby  to  give,  that  it  is  the  intention  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  cancel  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  British  Arbitrator,  and  to  withdraw  from  tho  arbitration  at  the  close 
of  the  term  fixed  for  the  adjournment,  unless  the  difierence  which  has  arisen  between 
the  two  Governments  as  to  the  claims  for  indirect  losses,  referred  to  in  the  note  which 
the  undersigned  had  the  honor  to  address  to  Count  Sclopis  on  the  15th  of  April,  shall 
have  been  removed." 

SCHENCK. 


No.  97. 
General  Schetick  to  Mr.  Fish. 

JJo.  252.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  June  8, 1872.    (Received  June  2L) 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  forward  herewith  copies  of  all  the  corre- 
spondence which  has  taken  place  between  Lord  Granville  and  myself 
relative  to  the  proposed  new  Treaty  Article  in  regard  to  indirect  claims,, 
since  the  31st  ultimo. 


I  am,  &c. 


ROBT.  C.  SCHENCK. 


[Incloanre  1  in  No.  97.  | 

Earl  Granville  to  Genei-al  Schenck. 

Foreign  Office,  June  1, 1872. 

Sir  :  In  reply  to  the  commnnication  which  I  received  from  you  this  morning,  I  beg^ 
to  inform  you  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  hold  that  by  the  Article  adopted  by  the 
Senate,  cases  of  bad  faith  and  willful  misconduct  are  brought  within  the  scope  of  the 
proposed  agreement  which  deals  with  pecuniary  compensation. 


}  at  nprce- 
II  j'oii  and 
ecoive.  I 
niiii;  Lord 


•n'su(»ii(l«'tico 
rticlu  might 
liereforc,  tli« 
ors  from  tbit 
the  honor  to 
tioa  Hhai'  l)« 
uited  Statt'H 
[er  Miijesty'M 
iiary  of  their 
ion,  of  which 
[ueiit. 


:er  herewith 
Brring  to  the 
[uired  by  the 
'.  by  tlie  Gov- 
ivered  to  the 
ti  he  had  the 
nited  States, 
laH  the  houor 
incel  the  ap- 
1  at  the  close 
isen  between 
e  note  which 
f  April,  shall 

lENCK. 


COKRESrONDKNCE    RE8ri:CTlN({    (JENEVA    ARIUTKATION. 


5C3 


r£S, 
line  21.) 

the  corre- 
nd  myself 
ect  claims^ 


lENCK. 


me  1, 1872. 
>ming,  I  beg^ 
>pted  by  the 
scope  of  the 


It  appears  to  be  the  view  of  tlie  floveniment  of  the  United  States  that  snch  cases  are 
not  a  lit  Hiiliject  of  pecuniary  compensation,  and  I  am  informed  by  Mir  Edward  Tliorn- 
ton  that  Mr.  Fish  is  of  opinion  that  the  article  adopted  by  the  Senate  is  capable  of  im- 
prov(!nient. 

The  Tresident  thinks  that  the  Article  last  proposed  by  Her  Majesty's  Government  in 
also  capable  of  improvement. 

The  American  (Sovernment  state  that  "  it  is  not  believed  that  there  is  any  sucli  differ- 
ence of  object  between  thetwo(ioverumentsin  the  definition  and  limitation  which  each 
desires  to  places  upon  the  liability  of  a  neutral,  as  toitrevent  an  agreement  on  thelan- 
guage  in  which  to  express  it,  if  time  bo  allowed  for  the  exchange  of  views  by  souio 
other  means  than  the  telegrap)'." 

The  British  Government  must  decline  to  sign  a  treaty  which  is  not  in  conformity 
with  their  views,  and  which  does  not  express  the  principles  which  the  American  Gov- 
ernment believes  to  be  entertained  by  both  parties  to  the  negotiation,  and  which,  im- 
mediately after  being  signed,  would  become  the  subject  of  ncgu.iation  with  u  view  to 
its  alteration. 

In  this  position  they  repeat  their  readiness  to  extend  the  time  allowed  for  the  Arbi- 
tration to  meet  at  Geneva,  and  they  hove,  as  your  are  aware,  provided  Sir  E.  Thornton 
with  full  powers  to  sign  a  treaty  for  this  purpose  ;  or  they  are  willing  to  concur  in  a 
joint  application  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  once  to  adjourn  tlie  proceedings  of 
the  arbitration,  which  they  are  advised  it  is  within  the  competence  of  the  Arbitratorii 
to  do  upon  such  an  application  without  a  fresh  treaty. 
1  have,  &c., 

GRANVILLE. 


|Iiiclo8ure  2  in  No.  97.] 

licncral  Schenvk  to  Earl  GranciUc. 

Legation  of  tiik  Unitkd  Statks, 

Lovdon,  June  1,  1872. 
My  Lord  :  I  received  an  hour  ago  your  note  of  this  date  in  which  you  reply  to  the 
telegram  of  Mr.  Fish,  which  I  communicated  to  you  this  ,    o:  ning,  and  inform  mo  that 
Her  Majesty's  Government  decline  to  sign  a  treaty  of  the  character  and  with  the  ar- 
rangement for  the  future,  suggested  by  Mr.  Fish,  but  repeat  their  readiness  to  extend 
the  time  for  the  Arbitrators  to  meet  at  Geneva,  for  which  purpose  Sir  Edward  Thorn- 
ton has  ful '  powers  to  sign  a  treaty  ;  or  they  are  willing,  you  state,  to  concur  in  a  joint 
application  to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  to  adjourn  their  proceedings,  which  they  are 
advised  it  is  within  the  competence  of  the  Arbitrators  to  do  upon  such  an  application 
without  a  fresh  treaty. 
I  have  sent  the  full  text  of  your  note  to  Mr.  Fish  by  telegraph. 
I  have,  &c., 

ROBT.  C.  SCHENCK. 


llnoIoBnreS  in  Xo.  97.] 
Earl  Granvill';  to  General  SchencJc. 

FoRKioN  Okfick,  June  3, 1872. 

Sir  :  In  reply  to  the  question  which  you  put  to  me  this  morning,  F  have  to  state  to  you 
that  Her  Majesty's  Government  consider  that  the  Arbitrators  must  no  doubt  meet  on  the 
15th  of  June,  but  the  filuu  Article  of  the  Treaty,  though  it  contemplates  the  delivery 
of  written  arguments  on  that  day,  does  not  make  the  further  prosecution  of  the  arbi- 
tration impossible,  if,  on  that  day,  neither  party  presents  any  written  argument.  The 
Arbitrators  have  full  power  to  adjourn,  and  they  have  also  full  power  to  call,  after  the 
15th,  for  any  further  statements  or  arguments,  written  or  oral,  from  time  to  time,  as 
they  may. think  fit.  If,  therefore,  both  parties  agree  not  to  present  any  argument  till 
a  later  day  than  the  15th,  requesting  the  Arbitrators  to  adjourn,  and  if^the  Arbitrators 
should,  on  any  day  to  wbinh  they  may  have  adjourned,  accept  the  argument  which 
both  parties  may  then  wish  to  ten  \t  to  them,  this  will  be  quite  within  their  power. 
I  have,  sic, 

GRANVILLE. 


564 


TREATY   OF   WASHINGTON. 


[Inclosure  4  in  No.  97.] 
Earl  Granville  to  General  Schenck, 

Foreign  Office,  June  5, 1872. 

Sir  :  I  laid  Wfore  the  Cabinet  the  telegraphic  message  from  Mr.  Fish,  which  you  com- 
municated to  me  on  the  3d  iustai ... 

That  message  is  only  in  answer  to  a  portion  of  the  objections  raised  by  Her  Majesty's 
Government  to  the  alterations  in  the  draught  Article  proposed  by  the  Senate,  and 
does  not  notice  the  other  points  to  which  I  called  your  attention  in  my  letter  of  the 
28th  ultimo,  and  which  were  iutended  to  show  that  the  effect  of  those  alterations  is  to 
transfer  the  application  of  the  adjectives  "indirect"  and  "remote"  from  one  subject 
with  reference  to  which  they  have  been  used  in  the  recent  correspondence,  viz,  claims 
made  as  resulting  from  the  "acts  committed"  by  certain  vessels,  tb  a  different  subject, 
viz,  those  made  as  resulting  from  "  the  failure  to  observe  neutral  obligations."  It  is 
evident  that  a  loss  which  is  direct  and  immediate  with  reference  to  the  former  subject, 
may  be  indirect  and  remote  with  reference  to  the  latter,  and  this  appears  to  Her  Maj- 
esty's Government  to  be  actually  the  case,  with  respect  to  the  claims  which  it  is  as- 
sumed the  Government  of  the  United  States  still  intend  to  make  before  the  Arbitrators. 
The  Government  of  the  United  States  must  see  that  it  is  impossible  for  Her  Majesty's 
Government  to  authorize  Her  Ma^jasty's  Minister  at  Washington  to  sign  a  treaty,  the 
words  of  which  appear  to  Her  r»iaje8ty'8  Government  to  say  one  thing,  upon  a  mere 
uuderstarding  to  the  contrary  effect. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  cousideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient, 
humble  servant, 

GRANVILLE. 


[Inclosure  5  in  No.  97.) 
Earl  Granville  to  General  Schenck. 

Foreign  Office,  June  5,  1872. 

Sir:  There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  between  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
and  Her  Majesty's  Government  as  to  the  necessity  of  presenting  the  written  or  priu*ed 
arguments  on  the  15th  of  June.  I  beg  to  suggest  to  you  that,  1st,  the  fifth  Article  u 
directory;  it  speaks  of  something  which  "  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Agents"  of  the 
two  Governments  to  do  within  a  certain  time.  It  does  not  say  that  the  Treaty  is  to 
lapse  if  this  duty  is  neglected  or  not  performed  by  the  Agents  or  Agent  of  both  Gov- 
ernments, or  of  either  of  them.  2d.  It  would  hardly  be  suggested  that  the  Treaty 
would  lapse,  if  one  only  of  the  two  Agents  omitted  to  lodge  a  written  or  printed  argu- 
ment, such  as  this  Article  contemplates.  Yet  there  is  no  more  reason  for  saying  that 
such  a  written  or  printed  argument,  to  be  then  delivered,  is  a  sine  qua  mm  of  the  Treaty, 
if  both  Agents  omit  it,  than  if  one  only  does  so.  3d.  The  Article  is,  in  its  nature,  one  of 
procedure  only,  for  the  mutual  information  (it  may  be)  of  the  parties,  and  entirely  for 
the  assistance  of  the  Arbitrators,  but  muiuly  for  the  benefit  and  advantage  of  the 
parties  themselves,  who,  in  such  a  matter,  may  or  may  not  choose  to  avail  themselves 
of  it.  4th.  Nor  would  any  practical  inconvenience  or  disadvantage  arise  to  either 
party  (in  case  the  arbitration  proceeds)  from  an  agreement  not  to  present  such  argu- 
ments until  a  later  date,  the  Arbitrators  having  full  power  at  any  later  date  to  admit 
such  written  or  oral  arguments  as  they  may  think  fit. 

Her  Majesty's  Government  would  make  no  difficulty  as  to  a  suitable  arrangement 
for  the  presentation  of  the  arguments  if  a  convention  were  signed  by  Mr.  Fish  and  Sir 
Edward  Thornton  and  ratified  by  the  Senate,  although  there  was  not  time  for  the  rati- 
fications to  be  exchanged  in  London  previously  to  the  15th  of  .June. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient, 
humble  servant, 

GRANVILIE. 


llnclosure  6  in  No.  97.) 

Earl  Granville  to  General  Schenck, 

Foreign  Office,  June  5,  1879, 
Sir  :  I  have  to  state  to  you  that  with  the  view  of  obviating  the  difficulty  connected 
with  the  meeting  of  the  Arbitrators  at  Geneva  on  the  15th  instant,  and  the  presenta- 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.      565 


ne  5,  1872. 
chyoucom- 

Bt  Majesty's 
Senate,  and 
etter  of  the 
rations  is  to 
one  sabject 
viz,  claims 
eut  subject, 
ions."  It  is 
tner  subject, 
to  Her  Maj- 
ich  it  is  as- 
Arbitrators. 
er  Majesty's 
,  treaty,  the 
pon  a  mere 

st  obedient, 

lNVILLE. 


ine  5,  1872. 
nited  States 
n  or  printed 
th  Article  i.. 
Bnts"  of  the 
Treaty  is  to 
"  both  Gov- 

the  Treaty 
riuted  argu- 
saying  that 
f  the  Treaty, 
tture,  one  of 

entirely  for 
tace  of  the 

themselves 
se  to  either 
such  argu- 
ite  to  admit 

irrangement 
l<Msh  and  Sir 
for  the  rati- 

st  obedient, 

NVILIE. 


tion  of  the  written  or  printed  argument  under  the  fifth  Article  of  the  Treaty  on  that 
day.  Her  Majesty's  Government  are  still  ready  either  to  agree  in  an  application  to  the 
Arbitrators  on  the  15th  to  a(ljoum  at  once  without  the  presentation  of  the  argument 
of  either  Government,  or  to  conclude  a  new  arrangement  with  the  treatj'-making  power 
of  the  United  States  for  the  enlargement  of  the  time ;  or,  instead  of  the  amendments  to 
the  Treaty  Article,  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  last  proposed,  they  are  willing  to 
conclude  it  with  the  following  additions:  First,  to  insert  after  the  paragraph,  as 
altered  by  the  Senate,  the  words  "  the  remote  or  indirect  losses  mentioned  in  this  agree- 
ment, being  losses  arising  remotely  or  indirectly  and  not  directly  from  acts  of  belliger- 
ents." Secondly,  to  insert  after  this  paragraph  another  paragraph:  "Further,  the 
stipulations  of  this  Convention  as  to  future  conduct  have  no  reference  to  acts  of  inten- 
tional ill-faith  or  willful  violation  of  international  duties." 

The  objection  to  negotiating  a  proposition  which  involves  the  idea  that  either  coun- 
try may  be  guilty  of  intentional  ill-faith  or  willful  violation  of  its  international  duties 
might  be  met  by  such  declaration  as  that  proposed  in  the  second  of  these  additions 
being  inserted  in  the  Treaty  Articles,  or,  if  the  United  States  should  prefer  it,  by  an  in- 
terchange of  notes  approveil  by  the  Senate  at  the  time  of  ratification. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  most  obedient,  humble  servant, 

GRANVILLE. 


[Inclosnre  7  in  No.  97.J 

General  Schenck  to  Earl  Granville. 

Legation  of  the  Unitkd  States, 

London,  June  6,  1872. 

My  Lokd  :  I  had  the  honor  to  receive  late  last  night  your  three  notes  of  yesterday's 
date,  containing  several  suggestions  for  a  modification  of  the  proposed  supplementary 
Article,  and  with  a  further  explanation  of  the  views  and  reasons  therefor  of  Her  Maj- 
esty's Government,  and  in  which  you  also  present  again  suggestions  and  views  in  re- 
lation to  questions  about  the  meeting  of  the  Arbitrators  and  the  presentation  of  argu- 
ments on  the  15th  instant. 

Without  commenting  on  or  replying  to  these  suggestions,  views,  or  reasons  which  you 
desire  to  bring  thus  again  and  more  specifically  to  the  notice  of  my  Government,  I  have 
to  inform  you  that  I  have  hastened  to  transmit  the  full  text  of  each  of  these  communi- 
cations by  telegraph  to  Mr.  Fish,  at  Washington. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  my  Yord,  with  the  highest  consideration,  your  Lordship's  most 
obedient  servant, 

ROBT.  C.  SCHENCK. 


ne  5,  1879. 

y  connected 
le  preseuta- 


[Iiic'losure  8  in  No.  97.J 

General  Schenck  to  Earl  GranriVc. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  June  6,  1872, 

My  Lokd:  In  the  conversation  we  had  yesterday,  and  which  was  resumed  this  morn- 
ing, you  stated  to  me  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  have  always  thought  the  lan- 
guage proposed  by  them  in  the  drauj,'ht  Article,  as  it  stands,  sufficient  for  the  piirpose 
of  removing  and  putting  an  end  to  all  demand  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  in  re- 
spect to  those  indirect  claims  which  they  put  forth  in  their  Case  at  Geneva,  and  to  the 
admissibility  of  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  have  objected ;  but  that  there  were 
those  who  doubted  whether  the  terms  used  were  explicit  enough  to  make  that  perfectly 
clear,  and  to  prevent  those  same  claims  from  being  put  forward  again.  I  concurred 
with  you  in  your  view  as  to  the  sufliciency  of  the  language  used  in  that  clause  of  the 
proposed  Article,  and  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  had  accepted ;  and  I 
repelled  the  idea  that  anybody  should  think  it  possible  that  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  if  they  should  yield  those  claims  for  a  consideration  in  a  settlement 
between  the  two  countries,  would  seek  to  bring  them  up  in  the  future,  or  would  insist 
that  they  were  still  before  the  Arbitrators  for  their  consideration. 

I  am  now  authorized,  in  a  telegraphic  dispatch  received  to-day  from  Mr.  Fish,  to  say 
that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  regards  the  new  rule  contained  in  the  pro- 
posed Article  as  the  consideration  for,  and  to  be  accepted  as,  a  final  settlement  of  the 
three  classes  of  the  indirect  claims  put  forth  in  the  Case  of  the  United  States  to  which 
the  Government  of  Great  Britain  have  objected. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  my  Lord,  your  Lordship's  most 
obedient  servant, 

ROBT.  C.  SCHENCK. 


566  TREATY   OF   WASHINGTON. 

[Inclosure  9  in  No.  97.) 
Earl  Granville  to  General  Schenck. 

Foreign  Offick,  June  7,  1872. 

Sir:  In  a  telegram,  which  I  have  this  morning  received  from  Sir  Edward  Thornton, 
he  remarks,  with  reference  to  the  first  of  the  two  passages  which,  in  my  letter  to  you 
of  the  5th  instant,  I  stated  that  Her  M.-yesty's  Government  proposed  to  insert  in  the 
article  in  lieu  of  the  amendments  last  proposed  by  them,  that  Mr.  Fish  had  frequently, 
in  conversation  with  him,  objected  to  the  use  of  the  word  "  belligerent,"  and  wishes  that 
indirect  claims  arising  out  oi  acts  committed  by  persons  other  than  recognized  belliger- 
ents, as  well  as  belligerents,  should  be  agreed  to  be  not  admissible  for  tne  future. 

If  Mr.  Fish  should  still  entertain  the  same  opinion.  Her  Majesty's  Government  would 
be  quite  content  that  the  passage  in  question  should  run  thus : 

"The  remote  or  indirect  losses  mentioned  in  this  agreement,  being  losses  arising  re- 
motely or  indirectly,  and  not  directly,  from  acts  of  war." 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient, 
humble  servant, 

GRANVILLE. 


[Inclosure  10  in  No.  97.] 

General  Schenck  to  Earl  Granville. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  June  8,  1872. 

My  Lord  :  I  received  at  seven  o'clock  last  evening  your  note  of  yesterday  referring 
to  what  Sir  Edward  Thornton  has  stated  to  you  in  regard  to  Mr.  Fish's  objection  to 
the  word  "  belligerent,"  and  suggesting  a  modification  of  language  to  obviate  that 
objection. 

I  transmitted  the  full  text  of  your  note  by  telegraph  to  Mr.  Fish  immediately.  At 
the  same  time  I  informed  him  that  I  am  giving  your  Lordship  no  ground  for  believing 
that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  will  be  able  now  to  assent  to  any  change  of 
the  rule  as  expressed  by  the  Senate  amendment. 

I  have  the  honor  to  bo,  with  the  highest  consideration,  your  Lordship's  most  obedient 
servant, 

ROBT.  C.  SCHENCK. 


No.  98. 
Mr.  Fish  to  General  Schenck. 


[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  June  9,  1873. 

Your  telegram  received  at  miduight.  The  proposal  contaiued  in  Lord 
Granville's  note  of  yesterday  cannot  be  accepted  by  this  Government. 
In  my  dispatch  of  June  2  I  said  that  in  the  opinion  of  this  Government 
the  Arbitrators  have  the  power  to  adjourn  either  on  their  own  motion 
or  on  that  of  either  party,  and  that  if  the  arguments  be  put  in  on  both 
sides  on  lotb,  and  Great  Britain  moves  for  an  adjournment,  we  will 
assent,  but  we  cannot  be  parties  to  a  joint  applicatiou  for  adjournment. 
This  Government  has  no  reason  to  ask  an  adjournment,  and  if  it  abstain 
from  resisting  a  motion  to  adjourn,  it  will  do  so  from  courtesy  to  Great 
Britain.  Nor  can  this  Government  directly  or  indirectly  be  a  party  to 
an  agreement  or  understanding  whereby  Great  Britain  is  to  submit  her 
argument  to  the  Tribunal  conditionally  or  under  any  protest  or  reserva- 


ne  7,  1872. 
■d  Thornton, 
etter  to  you 
Dsert  in  the 
I  fi'equently, 
[  wishes  that 
zed  helliger- 
futnre. 
iment  would 

s  arising  re- 
st obedient, 
lNVILLE. 


PATES, 

ne  8,  1872. 

lay  referring 
objection  to 
)bviate  that 

diately.  At 
|br  believing 
y  change  of 

ost  obedient 

JHENCK. 


9,  1873. 

Hi  in  Lord 

rernment. 

veniment 

rn  motion 

[1  ou  both 

;,  we  will 

urnmeut. 

t  abstain 

to  Great 

party  to 

ibniit  her 

reserva- 


CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.      567 

tion.  The  obligations  of  the  Treaty  are  reciprocal,  and  no  right  is 
reserved  to  either  Government  of  any  qualified  action  while  the  other 
:8  fulfilling  the  spirit  and  the  letter  of  the  Treaty.  The  United  States 
will  feel  itself  bound  to  protest  against  a  conditional  presentation  of  the 
argument  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  or  any  assumed  reservation  of 
right  on  her  part  to  withdraw. 

If  the  British  Government  have  the  right  or  the  desire  to  withdraw 
from  the  arbitration,  or  to  cancel  the  appointment  of  their  Arbitrator, 
they  must  do  so  without  asking  the  consent  of  this  Government. 

If  such  notice  of  withdrawal  as  is  suggested  in  Lord  Granville's  note 
be  given,  it  will  be  the  duty  of  the  American  Agent  and  Counsel  to 
repel  it  very  decidedly,  and  in  terms  which  self-respect  will  make  neces- 
sary. Such  notice  would  instantly  terminate  all  further  negotiations  on 
the  part  of  this  Government.  You  will  send  to  Davis  copy  of  the  pro- 
posed Article,  and  inform  him  fully  of  the  present  condition  of  the  nego- 
tiation between  the  two  Governments,  and  you  will  send  a  copy  of  your 
telegram  of  yesterday  and  of  this  reply,  and  will  keep  him  advised  of  any 
further  correspondence  or  proceedings.  Send  copies  of  all  the  recent 
correspondence  necessary  to  inform  him  and  the  Counsel  of  what  has 
been  done. 

FISH. 


ho.  99. 


Mr.  Fish  to  Mr.  Davis. 
[Telegram.  ] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington^  June  9,  1872. 

You  and  the  Counsel  should  be  in  Geneva  on  15th  regardless  of  any 
action  which  Great  Britain  may  be  supposed  to  be  likely  to  take.  If 
deemed  necessary,  notice  must  be  given  to  Arbitrators  that  you  will  be 
there  to  deliver  argument  and  to  proceed  according  to  the  Treaty.  I 
have  telegraphed  Schenck  to  send  you  full  information  of  present  state 
of  negotiations,  with  copies  of  recent  correspondence,  and  especially 
of  a  note  of  Granville  and  of  my  reply  of  this  date.  Should  any  notice 
such  as  is  indicated  in  Granville's  note  be  given,  a  decided  protest  must 
be  entered  against  any  qualified  or  conditional  appearance  before  the 
Tribunal.  The  course  and  the  notice  suggested  by  Granville  will  be 
not  only  a  failure  to  observe  her  treaty  obligations  with  this  Government 
on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  but  will  also  be  an  indignity  to  the  friendly 
Powers  who  have  appointed  Arbitrators  to  attend  a  Tribunal  before 
which  two  parties  are  to  appear  In  good  faith.  Use  calm  and  measured 
language,  avoiding  menace  or  irritation  in  whatever  is  said.  You  will 
communicate  this  and  other  telegrams,  and  fill  information  received 
from  Schenck  to  Counsel,  who  will  consider  them  addressed  to  them, 
and  will  please  regulate  their  course  accordingly.  In  the  very  great 
uncertainty  as  to  the  course  which  England  intends  to  observe,  it  is 
difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  give  instructions  to  meet  tbe  contingencies 
which  may  arise.  If  Great  Britain  put  in  her  argument  on  15th  with- 
out any  offensive  notice,  and  then  moves  for  an  adjournment,  you  and 
Counsel  on  our  side  will  say  that  the  United  States  do  not  object  to  the 
adjournment. 

FISH. 


568 


TREATY   OP   WASHINGTON. 


No.  100. 

Mr.  Davis  to  Lord  Tenterden. 

Paris,  June  10, 1872.  (Received  June  11.) 
My  Lord  :  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith,  for  your  Lord- 
ship's information,  a  copy  of  a  letter  this  day  addressed  by 'me  to  each 
of  the  Arbitrators  in  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  constituted  under  the 
provisions  of  the  Treaty  concluded  at  Washington,  May  8,  1871,  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Her  Britannic  Majesty. 


I  have,  &c. 


J.  C.  BANCROFT  DAVIS. 


[Inclosnre  in  Xo.  lOO.J 

Mr.  Davis  to  M,  Sclopis.^ 

Paris,  June  10,  1872. 
Sir  :  I  have  received  from  my  Government  instructions,  in  order  to  avoid  possible 
misapprehensions,  to  inform  you  that  the  United  States  will  be  present,  by  their  Agent 
and  Counsel,  at  the  Hotel  de  Yille,  in  Geneva,  on  the  15th  instant,  pursuant  to  the 
order  of  adjournment  made  by  the  Tribunal  ou  the  16th  day  of  December  last,  and 
■will  then  and  there  be  prepared  to  present  their  argument,  in"  accordance  with  the  re- 
quirements of  the  Treaty  of  May  8, 1871,  and  to  hold  themselves  subject  to  such  further 
directions  of  the  Tribunal  as  may  be  made,  under  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty,  upon 
the  issues  raised  by  the  various  papers  which  have  been  presented  under  the  Treaty 
by  the  two  Governments,  now  in  the  possession  of  the  Tribunal. 


I  have,  &c., 


J.C.BANCROFT  FAVIS. 


No.  101. 

General  Schenek  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[Telegram.] 

London,  June  11, 1872.    (Received  at  11.50  a.  m.) 
Received  yesterday  morning  your  telegram  of  9th,  and  communi- 
cated to  Lord  Granville  immediately  all  except  the  instructions  at  the 
close.    Late  last  night,  after  a  long  Cabinet,  he  sent  me  the  following 
note : 

[Earl  Granville  to  General  Schenek,'] 

Sir:  Her  Majesty's  Government  understand  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  decline  any  agreement  between  the  two  Governments,  unless  the  Government 
of  Her  Majesty  consent  to  sign  the  supplemental  Article  as  altered  by  the  Senate,  to 
which  Her  Majesty's  Government  have  stated  their  objections,  or  unless  without  any 
declaration  as  to  our  doing  so  suh  modo  they  agree  to  taxe  a  further  step  in  the  proceed- 
ings before  the  Arbitrators,  while  a  misunderstanding  exists  as  to  what  both  parties 
agreed  to  submit  to  arbitration.  Mr.  Fish  states  to  you  that  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  have  no  reason  to  ask  for  an  adjournment  of  the  Arbitration  at  Geneva. 
The  reason  which  actuated  Her  Majesty's  Government  in  proposing  it  was  to  obtain 
time  for  the  conclusion  of  an  agreement  at  which  both  parties  had  already  nearly 
arrived.    Her  Majesty's  Government  will  have  now  to  consider  what  may  be  the  course 

■  Similar  letters  were  addressed  to  Baron  Ittguba,  M.  J.  Sttemplli,  Mr.  Adams,  and 
the  Lord  Chief  Justice. 


" 


line  11.) 
our  Lord- 
Ge  to  each 
under  the 
,  1871,  be- 

DAVIS. 


e  10,  1872. 
Old  possible 
their  Agent 
suant  to  the 
ber  last,  and 
with  the  re- 
such  further 
["reaty,  upon 
r  the  Treaty 


r  TAVIS. 


>0  a.  m.) 
communi- 
)ns  at  the 
following 


the  United 
jtovernment 
e  Senate,  to 
vithout  any 
the  proceed- 
>oth  parties 
ment  of  the 
L  at  Geneva, 
to  obtain 
eady  nearly 
e  the  course 

Adams,  and 


CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION.     569 

TDost  consistent  with  the  declarations  they  have  heretofore  made  most  respectful  to  the 
Tribunal  of  Arbitration  and  the  most  courteous  to  the  United  States.  The  British 
Arbitrator  will  proceed  to  Geneva,  and  at  the  meeting  of  the  Tribunal  the  British 
Agent  will  be  directed  to  present  to  them  a  statemen);  to  the  following  effect : 

"  Her  Majesty's  Government  regret  to  be  under  the  necessity  of  iniorming  the  Arbi- 
trators that  the  difference  between  Her  Majesty's  Government  and  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  referred  to  in  the  note  whicii  accompanied  the  presentation  of  the 
British  Counter  Cas«  on  the  15th  of  April  last,  has  not  yet  been  removed.  Her  Majesty's 
Government  have,  however,  been  engaged  in  negotiations  with  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  which  have  continued  down  to  the  present  time,  for  the  solution  of  the 
difficulty  which  has  thus  ai'isen,  and  they  do  not  abandon  the  hope  that,  if  further 
time  were  given  for  that  purpose,  such  a  solution  might  be  found  practicable.  Under 
these  circumstances,  the  course  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  would  respectfully 
request  the  Tribunal  to  take  is  to  adjourn  the  present  meeting  for  such  a  period  as  may 
enable  a  supplementary  convention  to  be  still  concluded  and  ratified  between  the  High 
Contracting  Parties.  In  the  mean  time  the  High  Contracting  Parties  not  being  in  accord 
as  to  the  subject-matter  of  the  reference  to  arbitration,  Her  Majesty's  Government 
regret  to  find  themselves  unable  to  deliver  the- written  argument,  which  their  Agent  is 
directed  to  put  in  under  the  fifth  Article  of  the  Treaty,  (although  that  argument  has 
been  duly  prepared  and  is  in  the  hands  of  their  Agent,)  or  to  take  any  other  steps  at 
the  present  time  in  the  intended  arbitration.  It  will  of  course  be  understood  by  the 
Tribunal  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  (while  they  would  consider  the  Tribunal  to 
have  full  power  to  proceed  at  the  end  of  the  period  of  adjournment  if  the  difference 
between  the  High  Contracting  Parties  should  then  have  been  removed,  notwithstanding 
the  non-delivery  on  this  day  of  the  argument  by  the  British  Agent)  continue,  while  re- 
questing this  adjournment,  to  reserve  all  Her  Majesty's  rights  in  the  event  of  an  agree- 
ment not  being  finally  arrived  at  in  the  same  manner  as  was  expressed  in  the  note 
which  accompanied  the  British  Counter  Case." 

SCHENCK. 


No.  102. 
Oeneral  Schenck  to  Mr.  Fish. 
[Telegram.] 

London,  June  11, 1872.    (Eeceived  at  3.40  p.  m.) 

Have  acknowledged  Lord  Granville's  note  telegraphed  you  this  morn- 
ing, saying  I  have  transmitted  it  to  my  Government,  at  Washington, 
where  1  have  no  doubt  it  will  be  received  and  considered  in  the  same 
friendly  spirit  in  which  it  is  intended,  and  as  a  sincere  effort  yet  to  pre- 
serve the  Treaty  between  the  two  countries. 

SCK^NGK. 


No.  103. 

Oeneral  Schenck  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[Telegram.] 

London,  Jnne  12, 1872 — 3.  45  p.  m. 

(Received  at  10.45  p.  m.) 

Have  this  moment  received  another  long  communication'  from  Lord 
Granville.  It  is  in  a  very  friendly  spirit.  He  recapitulates  the  hi.story 
of  the  negotiation  for  a  supplementary  Article,  and  then  proceeds  as 
follows : 

lEarl  Granville  to  General  Schenck.} 

Her  Majesty's  Government  believe,  therefore,  that  they  have  met  all  the  objections, 
so  far  as  they  have  been  informed  of  them,  which  have  been  from  time  to  time  advanced 
to  the  suggestions  which  they  have  made,  and  that  this  recapitulation  of  the  negotia- 

'  For  full  text  of  this  note  see  p.  573. 


570 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON. 


tion  shows  that,  unless  Her  Majesty's  Government  have  erred  in  their  viow  of  the  prob- 
able intention  of  the  Senate,  the  two  Governments  are  substantially  agreed,  or  that,  if 
there  is  any  difference  between  them  in  principle,  it  is  reduced  to  the  smallest  propor- 
tions. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  objections  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  entertain,  and 
have  expressed,  to  the  language  of  the  amendments  made  by  the  Senate,  are  founded 
upon  reasons  to  which  they  attach  the  greatest  importance,  though  the^  think  it  pos- 
sible that  the  Senate  did  not  intend  to  use  that  language  in  the  sens  iich,  according 
to  the  view  of  Her  Majesty's  Government,  the  words  properly  bep*^ 

The  Government  of  the  United.  States  have  stated  in  the  telographic  message  from 
Mr.  Fish,  to  which  I  have  already  referred,  that  there  are  some  cases  not  provided  for 
in  the  words  suggested  by  Her  Majesty's  Government  on  the  30th  of  May.  If  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  are  of  opinion  that  these  cases  are  not  covered  by  the  last 
proposed  form  of  Article,  and  will  state  what  are  the  c<taes  in  question.  Her  Mtyesty's 
Government  cannot  but  think  that  the  two  Governmentts  might  probably  agree  upon  a 
form  of  words  which  would  meet  them  without  being  open  to  the  objections  which 
they  have  felt  to  the  wording  of  the  Article  as  proposed  by  the  Senate.  Her  Majesty's 
Government  have  never  put  forward  their  words  as  an  ultimatum,  and  they  will  be 
willing  to  consider  at  the  proper  time  other  words,  if  an  a4Jonrnment  is  agreed  upon. 

I  shall  make  no  reply  at  preseni  to  this  communication,  not  having 
from  you  any  answer  to  or  comment  on  Granville's  note  of  10th,  tele- 
graphed yesterday  morning.  Have  sent  Davis  copies  of  all  notes  and 
telegrams.    He  goes  to  Geneva  to-morrow. 

SCHENCK. 


No.  104. 
General  ScJienck  to  Mr.  Fish. 

IJo.  254.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  June  13, 1872.    (Received  June  25.) 

Sir:  With  this  I  transmit  copies  of  all  correspondence  with  the 
Foreign  Office. 

I  send  also  reports  of  proceedings  in  both  Houses.of  Parliament,  and 
articles  from  the  leading  journals  since  that  date,  which  will  serve  to 
inform  you  better  than  anything  else  could  do  of  the  excitement  and 
anxiety  here  occasioned  by  the  imminent  prospect  of  the  failure  of  the 
arbitration  at  Geneva. 

Up  to  this  time  I  am  without  any  reply  from  you  to  my  two  telegrams 
of  the  11th,  and  one  of  yesterday,  (12th,)  and  I  am,  therefore,  unable  to 
inform  Lord  Granville  whether  you  are  willing  to  give  any  conaideration 
to  his  last  two  communications.  You  have  probably,  howevei:,  tele- 
graphed your  further  views  and  instructions  direct  to  Mr.  Davis.  He 
goes  from  Paris  to  Geneva  to-day,  and  has  been  furnished  with  copies 
of  all  notes  and  telegrams  relating  to  recent  negotiations  and  the  points 
that  have  been  in  controversy. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

ROBT.  C.  SCHENCK. 


rincIoBure  1  in  No.  104.] 


Earl  Granville  to  General  Schenck. 

Foreign  Office,  June  8, 1872. 
SiK :  It  appears  to  Her  Majesty's  Government  from  a  review  of  the  correspondence 
between  the  two  Governments  that  an  agreement  on  the  supplemental  Article  alight 
probably  be  arrived  at,  if  suSicieut  time  were  given  for  discussion.    If,  therefore,  the 


»f  the  prob- 
,  or  that,  if 
lest  propor- 

ertain,  and 
re  founded 
link  it  po8- 
1,  according 

)8aage  from 
rovided  for 
IftheGov- 
by  the  last 
r  Majesty's 
;ree  upon  a 
biona  which 
ir  Majesty's 
bey  will  be 
reed  upon. 

)t  having 
LOth,  tele- 
notes  and 

ENCK. 


me  25.) 
with  the 

lent,  and 

serve  to 

uent  and 

re  of  the 

elegrams 
unable  to 
iderRtion 
vei:,  tele- 
tvis.  He 
th  copies 
le  points 


CORRESPONDEXCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA  ARBITRATION.       571 

Treaty  is  to  be  maintained,  an  adjournment  of  the  meeting  of  the  Arbitrators  from  the 
15th  instant  has  become  absolutely  necessary.  With  this  /lew  I  have  the  honor  to 
propose  that  on  the  meeting  of  the  Arbitrators  on  that  day,  a  joint  application  shall  be 
made  for  an  adjournment  for  eight  months. 

If  the  Government  of  the  United  States  concur  '•"  uiaking  an  application  for  adjourn- 
ment, it  is  the  intention  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  deliver  to  the  Arbitrators  on 
the  15th  iustant  the  summary  of  their  argument  under  the  fifth  Artiule  of  the  Treaty, 
accompanied  by  a  declaration  of  M'hich  I  have  the  houor  to  in<'lose  you  a  copy  for  the 
information  of  your  Government. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient, 
humble  servant, 

GRANVILLE. 


[Incluaure  2  iu  K'o.  lOJ.J 
Sketch  of  draught  note  in  presenting  summary. 

The  undersigned  Agent,  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  h.as  the  honor  to  deliver  herewith 
to  Count  Sclopis,  «&c.,  the  printed  argument,  showing  the  points  and  referring  to  the 
evidence  on  which  the  Government  of  Her  Britannic  M^^esty  relies,  as  required  by  the 
fifth  Article  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington. 

The  undersigned  is  instructed  by  tTie  Government  which  he  represents  to  state  that 
this  printed  argument  is  only  delivered  to  the  Tribunal  condit'oually  on  the  adjourn- 
ment requested  iu  the  note  which  he  had  the  honor  to  address  to  the  Tribunal  this  day, 
jointly  with  the  Agent  of  the  United  States,  being  carried  into  effect,  and  subject  to 
the  notice,  which  the  undersigned  has  the  honor  hereby  to  give,  that  it  is  the  intention 
of  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  cancel  the  appointment  of  the  British  i^'Mtrator,  and 
to  withdraw  from  the  arbitration  at  the  close  of  the  term  fixed  for  th  ijournmeut, 
unless  the  difference  which  has  arisen  between  the  two  Governments  as  to  the  claims 
for  indirect  losses  referred  to  in  the  note  which  the  undersigned  had  the  honor  to  ad- 
dress to  Count  Sclopis  on  the  15th  of  April  shall  have  been  removed. 


[iDclcsure  3  in  Ko.  104.] 

Genei-al  Schenck  to  Earl  Granville. 

Legation  of  the  United  Statk.s, 

London,  June  8,  1872. 
My  Lord  :  I  have  received  this  evening  (7.30  p.  m.)  your  note  of  to-day's  date,  com- 
municating for  the  information  of  my  Government  a  copy  of  a  sketch  of  draught  note 
to  be  used  in  presenting  to  the  Arbitrators  a  summary  of  their  argument  on  the  15th 
instant,  such  draught  note  being  based  on  a  proposed  application  for  an  adjournment  of 
the  arbitration  for  eight  months. 

I  shall  immediately  transmit  your  note  and  the  inclosure  by  telegraph  to  Mr.  Fish. 
'  I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  your  Lordship's  most  obe- 
dient servant, 

ROBERT  C.  SCHENCK. 


<:nck. 


rinclusuro  4  iu  Nu.  104,] 
Earl  Granville  to  General  Schenck. 


8,  1872. 
ispondence 
tide  lUight 
refore,  the 


FoKEiGN  Office,  June  10, 1872. 
Sir:  Her  Majesty's  Government  understand  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  decli  ■  a  any  agreement  between  the  two  Governments,  unless  the  Government 
of  Her  Majesty  consent  to  sign  the  supplemental  Article  as  altered  by  the  Senate,  to 
which  Her  Majesty's  Government  have  stated  their  objections,  or  unless  they  agree, 
without  any  declaration  as  to  their  doing  so  sub  modo  to  take  a  further  step  in  the  pro- 
ceeding before  the  Arbitrators,  while  a  misunderstanding  exists  as  to  what  both  parties 
agreed  to  submit  to  arbitration. 


672 


TREATY   OF    WASHINGTON. 


Mr.  Fish  Htates  to  you  tliftt  the  Govornmeut  of  the  United  States  have  no  reason  to 
ask  for  an  a<ljournniunt  of  the  arbitration  at  Geneva. 

The  reason  which  actuated  Her  Majesty's  Government  in  proposing  it,  was  to  obtain 
time  for  the  couchision  of  an  agreement  at  which  both  parties  had  already  nearly 
arrived. 

Her  Majesty's  Government  will  have  now  to  consider  what  may  be  the  course  most 
consistent  with  the  declarations  they  have  heretofore  made,  most  respectful  to  the 
Tribunal  of  Arbitration,  and  the  most  courteous  to  the  United  States. 

The  British  Arbitrator  will  repair  to  Geneva,  and  at  the  meeting  of  the  Tribunal  the 
British  Agent  will  be  directed  to  present  them  a  statement  to  the  following  effect : 

"  Her  Majesty's  Government  regret  to  be  under  the  necessity  of  informing  the  Arbi- 
trators that  the  difference  between  Her  Majesty's  Government  and  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  referred  to  in  the  note  which  accompanied  the  presentation  of  the 
British  Counter  Case  on  the  15th  of  April  last,  has  not  yet  been  removed.  Her  Majes- 
ty's Government  have,  however,  been  engaged  in  negotiations  with  the  Government 
of  the  United  States,  which  have  continued  down  to  tue  present  time,  for  the  solution 
of  the  difficulty  which  has  thus  arisen  ;  and  they  do  not  abandon  the  hope  that,  if  fur- 
ther time  were  given  for  that  purpose,  such  a  solution  might  be  found  practicable. 

"  Under  these  circumstances,  the  course  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  would 
respectfully  request  the  Tribunal  to  take  is,  to  adjourn  the  present  meeting  for  such  a 
period  as  may  enable  a  supplementary  convention  to  be  still  concluded  and  ratified 
between  the  High  Contracting  Parties. 

"In  the  mean  time,  the  High  Contracting  Parties  not  being  in  accord  as  to  the  sub- 
ject-matter of  the  reference  to  arbitration,  Her  Majesty's  Government  regret  to  find 
themselves  unable  to  deliver  the  written  argument  which  their  Agent  is  directed  to  put 
in  under  the  Vth  Article  of  the  Treaty,  (although  that  argument  has  been  duly  pre- 
pared, and  is  in  the  hands  of  their  Agent,)  or  to  take  any  other  step  at  the  present 
time  in  the  intended  arbitration. 

"  It  will,  of  course,  be  understood  by  the  Tribunal  that  Her  Majesty's  Government 
(while  they  would  consider  the  Tribunal  to  have  full  power  to  proceed  at  the  end  of 
the  period  of  adjournment,  if  the  difference  between  the  High  Contracting  Parties 
should  then  have  been  removed,  notwithstanding  the  non-delivery  on  this  day  of  the 
argument  by  the  British  Agent)  continue,  while  requesting  this  adjournment,  to 
reserve  all  Her  Majesty's  rights  in  the  eve?it  of  an  agreement  not  being  finally  arrived 
at,  in  the  same  manner  as  was  expressed  in  the  note  which  accompauied  the  British 
Counter  Case." 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  high  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient,  humble, 
servant, 

GRANVILLE. 


fIncloBure  5  in  No.  104.] 
General  Schenck  to  Earl  Granville. 

Legation  of  the  United  St.^tes, 

London,  June  11,  1872. 

My  Lord  •  I  had  the  honor  to  receive  late  last  night  your  note  of  yesterday,  refer- 
ring to  the  present  state  of  the  negotiations  between  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  and  Her  Majesty's  Government  in  relation  to  the  proposed  supplementary  Arti- 
cle, or  to  an  adjournment  of  the  arbitration  at  Geneva ;  and  informing  me  that  Her 
Majesty's  Government  will  now  have  to  consider  what  may  be  the  course  most  consist- 
ent with  the  declarations  they  have  heretofore  made,  most  respectful  to  the  Tribunal 
of  Arbitration,  and  the  most  courteous  to  the  LTnited  States.  Your  Lordship  then 
proceeds  to  state  that  the  British  Arbitrator  will  repair  to  Geneva,  where  the  British 
Agent,  at  the  meeting  of  the  Tribunal,  will  be  directed  to  present  them  a  statement  to 
the  effect  that  the  difference  between  the  two  Governments  referred  to  in  the  note 
which  accompanied  the  presentation  of  the  British  Counter  Case,  not  having  been  re- 
Tioved,  although  negotiations  to  that  end  have  been  engaged  in  and  continued  down 
to  the  present  time,  Her  Majesty's  Government  do  not  abandon  the  hope  that  if  fur- 
ther time  were  given  for  that  purpose  such  a  solution  might  be  found  practicable. 
And  that,  under  these  circumstances,  the  course  which  Her  Majesty's  Government 
would  respectfully  request  the  Tribunal  to  take  is,  to  adjourn  for  such  a  period  as  may 
enable  a  supplementary  convention  to  be  still  concluded  and  ratified  between  the 
High  Contracting  Parties.  And  you  further  infori"  me  that,  in  the  mean  time,  the  High 
Contractiug  Parties  not  being  in  accord  as  to  the  subject-matter  of  the  reference  to 
arbitration,  Her  MJ^,je8ty's  Government  regret  to  find  themselves  unable  to  deliver  their 
written  argument  under  the  Vth  Article  of  the  Treaty,  although  that  argument  is  duly 
prepared  and  in  the  hands  of  their  Agent,  or  to  take  any  other  step  at  the  present 


>  reason  to 

s  to  obtain 
idy  nearly 

onrse  most 
tful  to  the 

■ibunal  the 
eftect : 
\r  the  Arbi- 
einiueut  <»f 
tion  of  tbe 
Her  Majes- 
lovernraent 
be  solution 
bat,  if  fur- 
ticable. 
lent  would 
f  for  sncb  a 
,ud  ratified 

to  the  8ub- 
jret  to  find 
!cted  to  put 
sn  duly  pre- 
tbe  present 

government 
b  tbe  end  of 
ing  Parties 
i  day  of  tbe 
irnment,  to 
ally  arrived 
tbe  British 

nt,  humble, 

NVILLE. 


ATES, 

11,  1872. 

^rday,  refer- 
tbe  United 
fentary  Arti- 
|e  that  Her 
lost  cousist- 
ae  Tribunal 
rdsbip  then 
tbe  British 
tatement  to 
In  the  note 
mg  been  re- 
Inued  down 
Itbat  if  fur- 
practicable. 
}overnment 
riod  as  may 
jtween  the 
te,  the  High 
leference  to 
leliver  their 
Vent  is  duly 
the  present 


CORRESPONDENCE   RESPECTING   GENEVA   ARBITRATION.      573 

time  in  the  intended  arbitration.  And  you  add  that  it  will  of  course  be  understood  by 
the  Tribunal  that  while  Her  Ms^jesty's  Government  would  consider  tbe  Tribunal  to 
have  full  power  to  proceed  at  the  end  of  the  period  of  adjournment,  if  the  difference 
between  the  High  Contracting  Parties  should  then  have  been  removed,  notwithstanding 
tbe  non-delivery  on  that  day  of  the  argument  by  the  British  Agent,  they  will  continue, 
while  requesting  this  adjournment,  to  reserve  all  Her  Majesty's  rights  in  the  event  of 
an  agreement  being  finally  arrived  at,  in  tbe  same  manner  as  was  expressed  in  the 
note  which  accompanied  the  British  Counter  Case. 

This  note,  my  Lord,  in  its  full  text,  I  transmitted  this  morning  to  my  Government 
at  Washington,  where  I  have  no  doubt  it  will  bo  received  and  considered  in  the 
friendly  spirit  in  which  it  is  intended,  and  as  a  sincere  effort  yet  to  preserve  the  Treaty 
between  the  two  countries;  and  I  will  not  fail  to  communicate  to  you  at  the  earliest 
moment  the  answer  which  may  come  from  Mr.  Fish.  ' 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  my  Lord,  Your  Lordship's 
most  obedient  servant, 

ROBT.  C.  SCHENCK. 


[Iuclo8uro  6  in  No.  104.] 
Earl  Granville  to  General  Svhenck. 

Foreign  Office,  June  11,  1872. 

Sir  :  It  may  be  useful  that  I  should  briefly  recapitulate  the  negotiations  which  have 
passed  with  respect  to  the  supplementary  Treaty  Article  in  order  that  there  may  be  a 
distinct  and  connected  record  of  them. 

On  the  10th  of  May  Her  Majesty's  Government,  although  they  considered  that  the 
proposal  of  the  form  of  Article  would  como  more  conveniently  from  the  United  States 
Government,  proposed  the  draught  Article  as  originally  forwarded  to  you  on  that  day. 

This  draught  Article  was  substantially  the  same  as  tbe  draught  note,  the  interchange 
of  which  bad  formed  the  subject  of  previous  correspondence. 

On  the  26th  of  May  Her  Majesty's  Government  learned  that  tbe  Senate  had  recom- 
mended tbe  President  to  negotiate  a  convention  on  the  basis  of  this  draught  Article, 
with  tbe  substitution  of  two  other  paragraphs  for  the  fourth  and  fifth  paragraphs  of 
the  English  draught,  as  follows :  "  Whereas  tbe  Government  of  Her  Britannic  Mi^esty 
has  contended  in  tbe  recent  correspondence  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
as  follows,  namely :  That  such  indirect  claims  as  th^ise  for  the  national  losses  stated  in 
the  Case  presented  on  the  part  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  the  Tribunal 
of  Arbitration  at  Geneva,  to  have  been  sustained  by  '  the  loss  in  the  transfer  of  the 
American  commercial  marine  to  the  British  flag ;  the  enhanced  payments  of  insurance ; 
tbe  prolongation  of  the  war,  and  the  addition  of  a  large  sum  to  the  cost  of  the  war  and 
tbe  suppression  of  the  rebellion  ;'  firstly,  were  not  included,  in  fact,  in  the  Treaty  of 
Washington  ;  and  further,  and  secondly,  should  not  be  admitted  in  principle  as  grow- 
ing out  of  the  acts  committed  by  particular  vessels,  alleged  to  have  been  enabled  to 
commit  depredations  upon  the  snipping  of  a  belligerent  by  reason  of  such  a  want  of 
due  diligence  in  the  performance  of  neutral  obligations  as  that  which  is  imputed  by 
the  United  States  to  Great  Britain ;  and  whereas  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
has  contended  that  the  said  claims  were  included  in  the  Treaty ;  and  whereas  both 
Governments  adopt  for  the  future  the  principle  that  claims  for  remote  or  indirect 
losses  should  not  be  admitted  as  the  result  of  the  failure  to  observe  neutral  obliga- 
tions, so  far  as  to  declare  that  it  will  hereafter  guide  the  conduct  of  both  Governments 
in  their  relations  with  each  other : 

"  Now,  therefore,  in  consideration  thereof,  the  President  of  the  United  States,  by  and 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  thereof,  consents  that  he  will  make  no  claim 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States  in  respect  of  indirect  losses,  as  aforesaid,  before  the 
Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  Geneva." 

Her  Majesty's  Government  objected,  as  I  informed  you  in  my  ktter  of  tbe  27th  of 
May,  to  the  definition  as  therein  expressed  of  the  principle  which  both  Governments 
are  prepared  to  adopt  for  tbe  future,  as  too  vague,  and  proposed  the  substitution  of  the 
words,  "  of  a  like  nature,"  for  the  words,  "  for  remote  or  indirect  losses,"  and  the  substi- 
tution of  the  words,  "  such  want  of  due  diligence  ou  the  part  of  a  neutral,"  for  the 
words,  "  the  failure  to  observe  neutral  obligations." 

On  the  29th  of  Ma}'^  you  communicated  to  me  the  substance  of  a  telegraphic  dispatch 
from  Mr.  Fish,  stating  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  declined  to  agree  to 
these  alterations,  as  the  establishment  of  the  principle  embodied  in  the  Article  as  assented 
to  by  the  Senate  had  been  its  object  in  adhering  to  that  Article.  You  had  previously 
explained  to  me.  on  the  preceding  day,  that  what  you  considered  that  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  desired  was  the  establishment  of  a  general  principle  to  be  applied 


574 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON. 


to  cases  OH  tlit^y  tui^ht  ariNo,  and  notliiuite«1  to  particular  caHOH  orcirciimfttanccs  which 
may  or  may  not  over  occur. 

Her  Majesty's  Government  did  not  pretend  that  the  words  sngjjested,  by  themselves, 
were  incapable  of  improvement,  and  made  another  proposal  to  yuu  on  the  30th  of  May, 
which  they  trusted  would  meet  the  views  of  both  Governments,  as  follows: 

"  Whereas  the  Government  of  HerJ  Britannic  Majesty  has  contended  in  the  recent 
correspondence  with  the  (lovcrnment  of  the  United  States  as  follows,  namely  : 

"That  such  indirect  claims  as  those  for  the  national  losses  stated  in  the  Case  pre- 
,  sented  on  the  part  of  the  Government  of  the  United  Htates  to  the  Tribnnal  of  Arbitra- 
tion at  Geneva,  to  have  been  sustained  by  'the  loss  in  the  transfer  of  the  American  com- 
mercial marine  to  the  British  tiag ;  the  enhanced  payments  of  insurance ;  the  pro- 
longation of  the  war;  and  the  addition  of  a  large  sum  to  the  cost  of  the  war  and  the 
suppression  of  the  rebellion;'  firstly,  were  not  included  in  fact  in  the  Treaty  of  Wash- 
ington ;  and  further,  iind  secondly,  should  not  be  admitted  in  principle  as  growing  out 
of  the  acts  committed  by  particular  vessels  alleged  to  have  been  enabled  to  commit 
depredations  upon  the  shipping  of  a  belligerent  by  reason  of  such  a  want  of  due  dili- 
gence in  the  performance  of  neutral  obligations  as  that  which  is  imputed  by  the  United 
States  to  Great  Britain  ; 

"And  whereas  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has  contended  that  the  said 
claims  were  included  in  the  Treaty  ; 

"And  whereas  both  Governments  adopt  for  the  future  the  principle  that  claims 
against  neutrals  for  remote  and  indirect  losses  should  not  be  admitted  as  resulting 
from  the  acts  of  belligerents,  which  such  belligerents  may  have  been  enabled  to  com- 
mit by  reason  of  a  want  of  due  diligence  on  the  part  of  a  neutral  in  the  performance 
of  neutral  obligations,  so  far  as  to  declare  that  this  principle  will  hereafter  guide  the 
conduct  of  both  Governments  in  their  relations  with  each  other  : 

"  Now,  therefore,  in  consideration  th*-!  i  >f,  the  President  of  the  United  States,  by  and 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Stii:ite  thereof,  consents  that  he  will  make  tio  claim 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  before  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  Geneva,  in  re- 
spect ot  the  several  classes  of  indirect  losses  hereinbefore  enumerated." 

On  the  3l8t  of  May,  Her  Majesty's  Government  vcere  informed  by  Sir  E.  Thornton 
that  Mr.  Fish  acknowledged  that  the  Article  recommended  by  the  Senate  was  capa- 
ble of  improvement,  and  thought  that  the  one  proposed  by  Her  Majesty's  Government 
might  also  be  improved,  and  believed  that,  with  sufficient  time,  an  agreement  could 
be  come  to  satisfactory  to  both  countries,  which  have  the  same  object. 

On  the  same  night  yon  communicated  to  me  a  telegraphic  message  from  Mr.  Fish, 
stating  that  "  it  is  not  believed  that  there  is  any  such  uiiference  of  object  between  the 
two  Governments  in  the  definition  and  limitation  which  each  desires  to  place  upon  the 
liability  of  a  neutral  as  to  prevent  an  agreement  on  the  language  in  which  to  express 
it,  if  time  be  allowed  for  an  exchange  of  views  by  some  other  means  than  the  tele- 
graph," and  that  it  appeared  to  the  President  that  the  form  of  Article  last  proposed  by 
Her  Majesty's  Government  left  a  large  class  of  very  probable  cases  unprovided  for,  and 
that  he  held  (with  reference  to  an  observation  in  my  letter  to  you  of  the  2dth  of  May) 
"  that  the  results  of  bail  faith  or  willful  misconduct  toward  either  of  the  two  govern- 
ments would  never  be  the  subject  of  pecuniary  compensation." 

Her  Majesty's  Government,  in  their  earnest  desire  to  meet  the  views  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  therenpon  made  the  proposal  contained  in  my  letter  to  you 
of  the  5th  instant,  the  effect  of  w^bich  is  to  leavo  the  Article  as  proposed  by  the  Sen- 
ate, with  the  addition  merely  of  some  few  words  of  definition,  which,  if  the  intention 
of  the  Senate  was  that  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  have  been  willing  to  believe, 
(though  they  think  it  insufficiently  expressed,)  do  not  in  any  way  affect  it  in  principle, 
viz :  "  The  remote  or  indirect  losses  mentioned  in  this  agreement,  being  losses  arising 
remotely  or  indirectly,  and  not  directly,  from  acts  of  belligerents,"  and  of  a  declara- 
tion as  to  acts  of  willful  violation  of  international  duties,  which  might  either  be  in- 
serted in  the  Article  or  made  at  the  time  of  the  exchange  of  ratifications. 

Having  learnt,  on  the  7th  instant,  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  enter- 
tained objections  to  the  use  of  the  expression  "  acts  of  belligerents,"  Her  Majesty's 
Government  informed  yon  that  they  were  willing  to  change  it  to  "  acts  of  war.'' 

Her  Mtyesty's  Government  believe,  therefore,  that  they  have  met  all  the  objections, 
so  far  as  they  have  been  informed  of  them,  which  have  been  from  time  to  time  ad- 
vanced to  the  anggestions  which  they  have  made,  and  that  this  recapitulation  of  the 
negotiation  shows  that  unless  Her  Majesty's  Qovcrumeut  have  erred  in  their  view  of 
the  probable  intention  of  the  Senate,  the  two  Governments  are  substantially  agreed, 
or  that,  if  there  is  any  difference  between  them  in  principle,  it  is  reduced  to  the  small- 
est proportions. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  objections  which  Her  M^esty's  Government  entertain  and 
have  expressed  to  the  language  of  the  amendments  made  by  the  Senate,  are  founded 
upon  reasons  to  which  they  attach  the  greatest  importance,  though  they  think  it  possi- 
ble that  the  Senate  did  not  intend  to  use  that  language  in  the  sense  which,  according 
to  the  view  of  Her  Majesty's  Government,  the  words  properly  bear. 


anccs  which 

them  selves, 
;JOth  of  May, 

II  the  recent 
ely: 

he  Case  pro- 
1  of  Arbitra- 
aericau  coin- 
se ;  the  pro- 
war  and  the 
ity  of  Wash- 
growiuf;;  out 
I  to  commit 
I  of  due  dili- 
Y  the  United 

hat  the  said 

that  claims 
as  resulting 
bled  to  com- 
perfonnance 
LT  guide  the 

;ate8,  hy  and 
nke  no  claim 
aiieva,  in  re- 

E.  Thornton 
te  was  capa- 
Government 
ement  could 

ra  Mr.  Fish, 
Ijetween  the 
ice  upon  the 
to  express 
lan  the  tele- 
[iroposed  by 
led  for,  and 
3th  of  May) 
;wo  govera- 

;he  Govern - 
;ter  to  you 
by  the  Sen- 
le  intention 
to  believe, 
n  principle, 
jses  arising 
~  a  declara- 
ither  be  in- 

sates  enter- 
r  Majesty's 
yar." 

objections, 
o  time  ad- 
tion  of  the 
eir  view  of 
lly  agreed, 
the  small- 

ertain  and 
re  founded 
k  it  possi- 
,  according 


T 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    (JENEVA    ARIUTRATION.       575 

The  (io\  drnment  of  the  United  StateR  have  stated,  in  the  telegraphic  messago  from 
Mr.  Fish  to  which  I  have  already  referred,  that  there  are  some  cases  not  provided  for 
in  the  words  suggustod  by  Her  Majesty's  Government  on  the  30th  of  May.  If  tlie  Gov- 
crnuiciit  of  the  United  States  are  of  opinion  that  these  cases  are  not  covered  by  the 
last  proposed  form  of  Article,  and  will  state  what  are  the  ci»scs  in  question,  Her 
Majesty's  Government  cannot  but  think  that  the  two  Governments  might  probably 
agree  upon  a  form  of  words  which  would  meet  them,  without  being  open  to  the  objec- 
tions which  they  have  felt  to  the  wording  of  the  Article  as  proposed  by  tiie  Senate. 
Her  Majesty's  Government  have  never  put  forward  their  words  as  an  ultimatum,  and 
they  will  be  willing  to  consider,  at  the  proper  time,  other  words,  if  an  adjournment  is 
agreed  upon. 

I  havu  much  pleasure  in  taking  advantage  of  the  present  occasion  to  request  yon  to 
convey  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  the  appreciation  by  Her  Majesty's 
(iovornmcntof  the  frank  and  friendly  declaration  contained  in  your  letter  to  me  of  the 
(3th  instant,  respecting  the  last  paragraph  of  the  draught  Article. 

Her  Majesty's  Government  had  never  supposed  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  had  differed  from  Her  Majesty's  Government  in  the  sense  attached  to  that  por- 
tion of  the  Article,  but  they  look  upon  the  declaration  made  in  your  letter  as  an  addi- 
tional proof  of  the  anxiety,  which  they  are  confident  is  shared  by  both  Governments, 
of  bringing  the  negotiation  to  an  honorable  and  successful  issue. 

I  have  tlie  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient, 
humble  servant, 

GRANVILLE. 


No.  105. 

Mr,  Fish  to  Oeneral  Schenck. 
[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Wa8hington,  June  13, 1872. 

Telegraph  aud  write  to  Davis,  Hotel   Beau   Rivage,  Geneva,  as 
follows : 

See  my  telegrams  to  Schenck  of  second  and  ninth  June.    If  arguments  are  filed  in 
good  faith,  without  offensive  notice,  we  will  assent  to  their  motion  for  adjournment. 

FISH. 


[From  British  Blue  Book  "  North  America,"  No.  10,  (1872,)  p.  2.] 

Ifo.  106. 

Earl  Granville  to  Lord  Tenterden. 

Foreign  Office,  June  12, 1872. 
My  Lord  :  Should  the  Arbitrators  inqnire  for  how  long  a  period  the 
adjournment  requested  in  the  note  which  you  are  instructed  in  my  other 
dispatch  of  this  day's  date  to  present  to  them,  is  desired,  you  should 
state  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  understand  that  in  order  to  afford 
time  for  the  consideration  of  a  supplementary  convention  by  the  Senate 
in  the  session  commencing  in  December,  it  would  be  requisite  that  the 
adjournment  should  be  for  a  period  of  eight  nionthS)  with  power  for  the 
Arbitrators  to  meet  at  any  earlier  date,  upon  being  convened  for  that 
purpose  by  the  secretary,  on  the  joint  request  in  writing  of  the  Agents 
of  the  two  Governments. 
I  am,  &c., 

GEANVILLE. 


576  TREATY   OP    WASHINGTON 

[From  British  Blue  Book  "  North  America,"  No.  10,  (1872,)  p.  2.] 

No.  107. 

Uarl  Oranville  to  Lord  Tenterden. 

Foreign  Office,  June  12, 1872. 
My  Lord  :  Sir  Koundell  Palmer  having  consented,  at  the  request  of 
Her  Majesty's  Government,  to  attend  the  meeting  of  the  Tribunal  of 
Arbitration  on  the  15th  instant  as  Her  Majesty's  Counsel,  I  have  to 
instruct  you  to  be  fruided  by  his  advice  in  all  your  proceedings. 
I  am,  &c., 

GRANVILLE. 


[FroDJ  British  Bine  Book  "  North  America,"  No.  10,  (1872,)  p.  2.] 

No.  108. 

Earl  Oranville  to  Lord  Tenterden. 

Foreign  Office,  June  12, 1872. 
My  Lord  :  If  any  circumstances  not  provided  for  should  occur  while 
you  are  endeavoring  to  obtain  an  adjournment  according  to  your  in- 
structions, you  will  telegraph  the  particuLars  to  me  and  ask  for  instruc- 
tions. 

I  am,  &c., 

GRANVILLE. 


[From  British  Blue  Book  "  North  America,"  No.  10,  (1872,)  p.  2.] 

No.  109. 

Lord  Tenterden  to  ^arl  Oranville. 

Genev.i,  Tune  14, 1872.    (Received  June  21.) 
My  Lord  :  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  I  arrived  here  this  morning, 
in  company  with  the  Lord  Ciaei:  Justice,  Sir  R.  Palmer,  Mr.  Sanderson, 
Mr.  Lee  Hamilton,  and  Mr.  Langley. 

Count  Sclopis,  Baron  Itajuba,  Mr.  Adams,  and  Mr.  Bancroft  Davis, 
together  with  the  United  States  Counsel,  Mr.  Evarts,  Mr.  Gushing,  and 
Mr.  Waite,  are  here,  and  M.  Staempfli  is  expected  to  arrive  this  evening 
or  to-morrow  morning. 

The  meeting  of  the  Tribunal  has  been  fixed  for  12  o'clock  to-morrow, 
the  15th  instant,  in  pursuance  of  the  resolution  adopted  on  the  16th  of 
December  last. 
I      1  am,  &c., 

TENTERDEN. 


<-'c)Uin:sr<)M»i:NCK  kesimxiinj!  (iKNK\A  akiutkatkjn.     .")77 

No.  IH). 

Mr.  Jhtc'iH  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[T»>le|;riiin.] 

Geneva,  June  l.'>,  1872.     (Kowivcd  al  (l.-lo  p.  in.) 
Our  nrgiiineiit  prescMitod.    Tenteidoii  i»r(\soiit.s  note  in  loiin  alnlo^3t 
identical  with  (Jranville's  note  of  10th  to  Sehonck,  of  which  you  liave 
copy,  and  says  ho  i.s  in.strncted  to  withhold  Jiiitish  argument.  Tribunal 
adjourns  till  Monday  lor  con.sultution  on  our  side. 

DAVIS. 


No.  111. 

Mr.  Fhh  to  Mr.  ])ai'i.-i. 
[Telegram.] 

DEPAiiT:MENr  OF  State, 

Wash! ny ton,  June  18,  1872. 

If  there  is  to  be  an  adjournnuiit,  let  it  be  not  beyond  first  January, 
so  as  to  allow  time  for  a  Treaty,  if  one  be  agreed  upon,  to  be  submitted 
to  the  Senate  in  December,  and  theieafter  for  the  necessary  legislation 
respecting  flsh^^T'les,  assessors,  &c.  The  President  sees  no  objection  to 
such  adjourniaent,  if  asked  for  by  the  defendants,  and  nothing  objec- 
tionable shall  have  been  presented.  You  and  Counsel  will  understand, 
and,  if  necessary,  can  say,  that  there  can  be  no  extra  session  of  the 
Senate  called  ;  and  there  will  bo  no  extra  session  in  ^Marcli. 

FISH. 


■.I 


No.  112. 
Mr.  Davis  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[Telegraui.] 

Geneva,  June  10, 1872.    (Received  4.50  p.  m.) 

Tribunal  will  this  morning  make  declaration  reciting  British  motion 
for  adjournment,  and  reasons  given  for  making  it,  namely,  the  difi'er- 
euces  between  the  Governments  as  to  competency  of  Tribunal  to  deter- 
mine the  three  classes  of  indirect  claims,  and  then  continues : 

The  Arbitrators  do  not  propose  to  express  or  imply  unv  opinion  upon  the  point  thus 
in  diifereuce  between  the  two  Governments  as  to  the  interpretation  or  efioct  of  the 
Treaty,  but  it  seems  to  them  obvious  that  the  substantial  objoct  of  the  a(\journmeut 
must  be  to  give  the  two  Governments  an  opportunity  of  determining  whether  the  claims 
in  question  shall  or  shall  not  be  submitted  to  the  decision  of  the  Arbitrators,  and  that 
any  difference  between  the  two  Governments  on  this  point  may  make  the  adjournment 
unproductive  of  any  useful  effect,  and  after  a  delay  of  many  months,  during  which 
both  nations  may  be  kept  in  a  state  of  painful  suspense,  may  end  in  a  result  which 
it  is  to  be  presumed  both  Governments  Avould  equally  deplore,  that  of  making  ^his 
arbitration  wholly  abortive.  This  being  so,  the  Arbitrators  think  it  right,  to 
state  that  after  the  most  careful  perusal  of  all  that  has  been  urged  on  the  part  o 
Government  of  the  United  States  in  respect  of  these  chums,  they  have  arrive  J,    •.    - 

37  A— II 


I   I 

\ 

\ 

I 
j 

i 


.78 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON. 


vidually  and  collectively,  at  the  conclusion  that  these  claims  do  not  constitnte,  Tii>on 
the  principles  of  international  law  applicable  to  such  cases,  good  foundation  for  an 
award  of  compensation  or  compntation  of  damages  between  nations ;  and  should, 
npon  snch  principles,  be  wholly  excluded  from  the  consideration  of  the  Trilmnal  in 
makinu;  its  award,  even  if  there  were  no  disagreement  between  the  two  Governments 
as  to  the  competency  of  the  Tribunal  to  decide  thereon.  With  a  view  to  the  settle- 
ment of  the  other  claims,  to  the  consideration  of  which  by  the  Tribunal  no  exception 
has  been  taken  on  the  part  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty's  Government,  the  Arbitrators 
have  thought  it  desirable  to  lay  before  the  parties  this  expression  of  the  views  they 
have  formed  upon  the  question  of  public  law  involved,  in  order  that,  after  this  declara- 
tion by  the  Tribunal,  it  may  be  considered  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
whether  any  course  can  be  adopted  respecting  the  first-mentioned  claims  which  would 
relieve  the  Tribunal  from  the  necessity  of  deciding  upon  the  present  application  of 
Her  Britannic  Majesty's  Government. 

])Ayis. 


Xo.  113. 


Mr.  Bavis  to  Mr.  Fish. 
[Telegram.] 

Geneva,  June,  19, 1S7L*.    (liecjeived  at  G  p.  in.) 
The  Counsel  write  me  as  follows : 

AV^o  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  .announcement  this  day  made  by  the  Tribunal  must 
be  received  by  the  United  States  as  determinative  of  its  judgment  upon  the  (juestion  of 
public  law  involved,  upon  which  the  United  States  have  insisted  upon  taking  the 
opinion  of  the  Tribunal.  We  advise,  therefore,  that  it  should  be  submitted  to,  as  pre- 
cluding the  propriety  of  further  insisting  upon  the  claims  covered  by  this  declaration 
of  the  Tribunal,  and  that  the  United  States,  with  a  view  of  maintaining  the  duo  course 
of  the  arbitration  on  the  other  claims  without  jidjournmeut,  should  announce  to  the 
Tribunal  that  the  said  claims  covered  by  its  opinion  will  not  be  further  insisted  upon 
before  the  Tribunal  by  the  United  States,  and  may  be  excluded  from  all  consideration 
by  the  Tribunal  in  making  its  award. 

DAVIS. 


No.  114. 

^fr.  Fish  to  General  Schenvl: 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washingtorij  June  22,  1872. 
Send  following  by  telegraph,  and  also  by  mail,  without  delay,  to  Davis, 
Geneva : 

[Mr.  Fish  to  Mr.  Davis.'] 

Your  telegram  of  19tli  informs  me  that  the  Tribunal  has  made  .a  declaration  stating 
that  the  Arbitrators  have  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  a  class  of  the  claims  set  forth 
in  the  Case  proseuted  in  behalf  of  the  United  States  do  not  constitute,  upon  thei  prin- 
ciples of  international  law  applicable  to  such  coses,  a  good  foundation  for  an  award  of 
compensation  or  computation  of  damages  between  notions,  and  should,  upon  such 
principles,  be  wholly  excluded  from  the  consideration  of  the  Tribunal  in  making  up 
its  award. 

You  also  inform  mo  that  the  Counsel  of  this  Government  before  the  Tribunal  at 
Geneva  have  advised  in  writing  that  they  are  of  opinion  that  the  announcement  thus 


titute,  upon 
ation  for  an 
and  should, 
Tribunal  in 
iovernments 
(>  tbo  settle- 
no  exception 
3  Arbitrators 
B  views  they 
this  declara- 
Inited  States 
which  would 
pplicatiou  of 

DAVIS. 


t  0  l».  m.) 


ribunal  must 
he  question  of 
u  taking  the 
ted  to,  as  pre- 
8  declaration 
he  duo  course 
nounco  to  the 
nsisted  upon 
consideration 

DAVIS. 


ATE, 


22, 1872. 
y,  to  Davis, 


ation  stating 
lima  set  forth 
pon  the  prin- 
r  an  award  of 
\Ci,  upon  such 
in  making  up 

le  Tribunal  at 
fnceinent  thus 


CORRESPONDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.       O 


79 


made  by  the  Tribunal  must  bo  received  by  the  United  States  sis  determinative  of  its 
Judgment  upon  the  ([uestion  of  public  law  involved,  upon  which  the  United  States 
have  insisted  upon  taking  the  opinion  of  the  Tribunal ;  that  the  Counsel  advise,  th(<re- 
fore,  that  this  judgmant  be  submitted  to  as  precluding  the  propriety  of  further  insict- 
ing  upon  the  claims  covered  by  the  declaration  of  the  Tribunal;  and  that  the  United 
States,  with  a  view  of  maintaining  the  due  course  of  arbitration  on  the  other  claims, 
without  adjournment,  should  announce  its  opinion  that  the  claims  referred  tc  by  the 
Tribunal  will  not  be  further  insisted  upon  by  the  United  States,  and  may  be  exci:>ded 
from  its  consideration  by  the  Tribunal  in  making  its  award. 

I  have  laid  your  telegrams  before  the  President,  who  directs  me  to  say  that  li«  accepts 
the  declaration  of  the  Tribunal  as  its  judgment  upon  a  (inestion  of  public  law,  which 
he  had  felt  that  the  interests  of  both  Governments  required  should  be  decided,  and  for 
the  determination  of  which  he  luid  felt  it  important  to  present  tlio  claims  referred  to 
for  tlie  purpose  of  taking  the  opinion  of  the  Tribunal. 

This  is  the  attainment  of  an  end  which  this  Governmtint  had  in  view  in  the  putting 
forth  of  thost,  claims.  We  had  no  desire  for  a  pecnniary  award,  but  desired  an  expres- 
sion by  the  Tribunal  as  to  the  liability  of  a  neutral  Ibr  claims  of  that  character.  The 
President,  therefore,  further  accepts  the  opinion  and  advice  of  thci  Counsel  as  set  forth 
above,  and  authorizes  the  announcement  to  the  Tribunal  that  he  accepts  their  declara- 
tion as  determinative  of  their  Judgment  upon  the  important  question  of  public  law 
upon  which  he  had  felt  it  his  duty  to  seek  the  expression  of  their  opinion;  and  that  in 
accordance  with  such  judgment  and  opinion,  from  henceforth  ho  regards  the  claims 
set  forth  in  the  Case  presented  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  for  loss  in  the  transfer 
of  the  American  commercial  marine  to  the  British  Hag,  the  enhanced  payment  of  insur- 
ance, and  the  prolongation  of  the  war,  and  the  addition  of  a  large  sum  to  the  cost  of 
the  war,  and  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion,  as  adjudicated  and  disposed  of;  and  that, 
consequently,  they  will  not  be  further  insisted  upon  before  the  Tribunal  by  the  United 
States,  but  are  henceforth  excluded  from  its  consiileratiou  by  the  Tribunal  in  making 
its  award. 

FISH. 


No.  115. 


Mr.  Darin  to  Mr,  Fish. 

[Telegram.] 

Geneva,  June  25,  1872.    (Received  at  8  p.  m.) 

Couusel  write  me  reganliug  the  statement  sent  Sclienck  for  you  to-day : 

We  concur  in  the  form  of  communication  to  the  Tribunal  of  the  action  of  our  Gov- 
ernment which  vou  propose  to  make. 

DAVIS. 


No.  IIG. 

General  Sclienck  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[Telegram.] 

London,  June  2G,  1872.    (Received  at  11  a.  m.) 
Davis  telegraphs  as  follows : 

IMr.  Davis  to  Mr.  Fink  ] 

At  the  Conference  couveaed  this  day  [June  35]  by  Count  Sclopis,  I  said  tbe  declara- 
tion made  by  the  Tribunal,  individually  and  collectively,  respecting  the  claims  pre- 
sented by  the  United  States  for  the  award  of  the  Tribunal  for,  first,  the  losses  in  the 
transfer  of  the  American  commercial  marine  to  the  British  tiag ;  second,  the  enhanced 


mmmmmtmmi 


580 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


i)ayniciit  of  iusmaiicc  ;  and  third,  the  i»ioloiigt.Hoii  of  the  war,  and  the  addition  of  a 
argo  snra  to  tlie  cost  of  the  war  and  the  8upj)ros8iou  of  the  rebellion,  is  accepted  l)y 
the  President  o?  the  United  States  as  deterndnative  of  theii  judgment  upon  tlie  im- 
portant question  of  public  law  involved.  The  Agent  of  tne  United  States  is  authorized 
to  say  that  consequently  the  above-nientioued  claims  will  not  be  further  iusi'ted  upon 
before  the  Tribunal  by  the  United  States,  and  may  bo  excluded  from  ali  consideration 
in  any  award  that  may  bo  made.  To  this  Lord  Tenterdon  replied  :  "I  will  inform  my 
Government  of  the  dcclaratioQ  made  hy  tb"  Arbitrators  on  the  I'Jth  instant,  amd  of  th*^ 
statement  now  made  by  the  Agent  oi  the  United  States,  and  rtMjuest  their  instructions." 
The  Tribunal  then  adjourned  to  Thursday  at  11,  to  enable  him  to  communicate  by  tele- 
graph with  his  Government. 

sche:\ck. 


No.  117, 


Mr.  Schenclc  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[Telegram.] 

London,  June  27, 1872.    (Keceived  at  12  in.) 
Duvis  tele{»rai)lis  me  to  send  you  the  following : 

lilr.  Davis  to  Mr.  FMi.l 

Lord  Tciitcrdeu  will  say  this  day  to  Tribunal,  Her  Majesty's  Government  linding  tlie 
communication  on  the  part  of  the  Arbitrators  recorded  in  the  I'rotoco'  of  their  pro- 
ceedings of  the  19th  instant  nothing  to  which  they  cannot  assent  consistently  with 
tlieir  view  of  the  interpretation  and  effect  of  the  Tnnity  of  Washington,  hitherto 
maintained  by  them ;  and  being  informed  of  the  statement  made  ou  the  25th  instant 
by  the  Aj^ont  of  the  United  States,  that  the  several  claims  particularly  mentioned  in 
that  8ta{"m",nt  will  uot  be  further  insisted  upon  before  the  Tribunal  by  the  United 
States,  and  may  bo  excluded  from  all  consideration  in  any  award  that  may  be  made,  antl 
assuming  that  the  Arbitrators  will,  upon  such  statement,  think  fit  now  to  declare  that 
the  said  several  claims  are,  and  from  henceforth  will  be,  wholly  excluded  from  their 
consideration,  and  will  embody  such  declaration  in  their  I'rotocol  of  this  day's  proceed- 
ings, they  have  instructed  the  undersigned,  ujwn  this  being  done,  to  request  leave  to 
withdraw  the  application  made  by  him  to  the  Tribunal  on  the  loth  instant  for  such  an 
adjournment  as  might  enable  a  8uppleni*?-.t?ry  convention  to  be  concluded  and  ratified 
between  the  High  Contracting  Parties,  and  to  request  leave  to  deliver  the  printed  argu- 
ment now  in  the  hands  of  the  undersigned,  which  has  been  prepared  ou  the  part  of  Her 
Britannic  Majesty's  Government,  under  the  fifth  Article  of  the  Treaty.  With  reference 
to  the  other  claims  to  the  consideration  of  which,  by  the  Tribunal,  no  exception  has 
been  taken  on  the  x)art  of  Her  Majesty's  Government. 

SCHENCK. 


No.  118. 

Mr.  Davis  t<^  Mr.  Fish. 

[Telegram.] 

Geneva,  Jtme  27, 1872.    (Received  at  3.45  p.  ni.) 
British  argiuneut  filed.    Arbitration  goes  ou. 

DAVIS. 


("CKKESPOXDENCK    HKSPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION.      oSl 


dditiou  of  a 
vccepted  by 
[)ou  the  im- 
i  authorized 
si'- ted  upon 
)U8ideration 
1  inform  my 
t,  and  of  the 
istructious." 
cate  by  tele- 


it  12  III. 


t  tinding  the 
of  their  pro- 
stently  with 
on,  hitherto 
25th  iustaiit 
aeutioncd  in 
'  the  United 
je  made,  and 
declare  that 
1  from  their 
ly's  proceed- 
ie8t  leave  to 
;  for  such  an 

and  ratified 
rinted  arjju- 
i  l)art  of  Her 
itli  reference 

ceptiou  haH 

ENCK. 


5  p.  in.) 
xVVlS. 


[From  Mritish  IJhie  Book  ''North  America,"  No.  10,  (1^*7-2,)  p.  \2.'\ 

Xo.  119. 

Earl  Gmnvillc  to  Lord  Tcnterden. 

Foreign  Office,  Jfdi;  1,  1872. 

My  Lord:  I  have  received  and  laid  before  the  Queen  your  several 
dispatches  reporting  your  proceedings  at  Geneva,  between  the  14th  and 
28th  idtimo,  and  I  have  to  convey  to  you  Her  Majesty's  entire  approval 
of  the  able  and  prudent  manner  in  which  you  have  acquitted  yourself 
iu  the  discharge  of  t)ie  important  and  delicate  duties  with  which  you 
were  intrusted. 

Her  Majesty  appreciates  to  its  full  extent  the  value  of  the  assistance 
which  Sir  Roundel!  Palmer  was  good  enough  to  alford,  at  no  small  per- 
sonal sacrifice,  in  the  solution  of  a  «iuestion  of  such  importance ;  and, 
although  I  shall  convey  directly  to  Sir  Eoundell  Palmer  the  thanks  of 
Her  Majesty's  Government,  I  think  it  right  to  i)lace  on  official  record 
Her  Majesty's  gracious  sentiments,  and  you  will  have  the  goodness  to 
furnish  him  with  a  copy  of  this  dispatch. 

I  should  not  do  justice  to  the  feelings  of  Her  Majesty's  (Jovernment 
if  I  did  not  at  the  same  time  acknowledge  the  conciliator^'  s[)irit  shown 
by  your  American  colleagues. 

And,  although  the  existence  of  such  good  feeling,  on  the  part  of  the 
.i .  ^ts  of  the  two  countries,  facilitated  the  deliberations  of  the  Arbi- 
rr>v.  ( '•s  in  dealing  with  the  question  which  first  engaged  their  attention, 
it  is  still  the  duty  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  acknowledge  the 
thoughtfulness  and  wisdon'.  which  caused  them  to  adopt  and  act  on  the 
conclusions  at  which  they  spontaneously  arrived. 
I  am,  &c., 

GRANVILLE. 


* 


Xo.  120. 


Oeneral  Schencl-  to  Mr.  Fish. 


No.  2U0.J 


Legation  of  the  United  States, 
London,  August  1 2, 1872.    (Received  August  23.) 

Sir:  {  u  S;'iL-.irday,  the  30th  instant,  the  day  on  which  Parliament 
was  pi.  'f'  cnorl  i  did  not  receive  official  copies  of  the  Queen's  speech  iu 
time  for  th,  'r-iil  of  that  day.    I  foiward  now,  herewith,  two  copies. 

You  wi"  i  ^,*"'  e  what  Her  Majesty  is  made  to  say  in  regard  to  the 
declaratioi:  tf  .ae  Arbitrators  at  Geneva  on  the  subject  of  the  claims 
for  indirect  losses;  that  it  is  entirely  consistent  with  1  he  views  which 
she  announced,  at  the  opening  of  tlie  sess-ion.  On  tie  contrary,  the 
ground  taken  in  ilie  Queen's  speech  in  T'ebi'iary  latt  was,  that  the 
United  States  had  put  forward  certain  claims  winch  Her  Majesty's 
Government  held  not  to  be  within  the  scope  of  the  Treaty.  But  the 
Arbitrators  studiously  avo'ded  giving  any  opinion  on  that  point,  and 
CO"  "i!K'>^  themselves  to  an  expression  of  opinion,  in  effect  by  the  Tribunal, 
that  rinut  reference  to  the  question  of  aduiissibility  or  inadmissibility 
of  such  if'-  ander  the  Treaty,  they  could  not,  under  the  principles  of 
public  law ,  be  considered  in  making  up  an  award,  because  of  their  re- 
mote or  consequential  character. 
I  have,  «&c., 

liOBT.  C.  SCHENCK. 


582  TREATY    OF    WASIflNGTON 

|Iiicl<iaiirc  in  \o.  I'JO.J 
HxtravA  from  Her  Majexty's  moist  graciovx  upeeth. 

My  LoiiDs  AM)  Gkntlkmkx  :  Tli«  time  lias  now  arrivod  wlnni  yon  may  jjioperly  roliii- 
quisli  tlio  performance  of  your  artluous  duties  for  a  term  of  repose,  which  has  been 
honorably  earned  by  yonr  devoted  assiduity. 

I  rejoice  to  inform  you  that  the  controversy  which  liad  arisen  between  my  Govern- 
ment and  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  in  conseipience  of  the  presentation  of 
the  Aniericau  claims  for  indirect  losses  under  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  has  been  com- 
posed by  a  spontaneous  declaration  of  the  Arbitrators  entirely  consistent  with  the  views 
which  I  announced  to  you  at  the  opening  of  the  session.  In  concurrence  with  your 
action  on  the  part  of  the  Linited  Kingdom,  thp  i.*arliament  of  Canada  has  passed  the 
acts  necessary  to  give  eftect  to  the  Treaty  within  the  Dominion.  All  the  arrangementK 
contemplated  by  that  instrument  are,  therefore,  now  in  progress,  and  I  reflect  with 
satisfaction  that  the  siibjects  witli  which  it  has  dealt  no  longer  otter  any  impediment 
to  a  perfect  concord  between  two  kindred  nations. 


No.  121. 
Mr.  Finh  to  General  iSehenck. 


No.  2iH). 


Dei'Artment  of  State, 

Washington,  August  31,  1872. 

Sir  :  1  biive  tlie  pleasure  to  acknowledge  your  No.  290,  inclosing  two 
copies  of  the  Queen's  speech  ou  the  prorogation  of  the  two  Houses  ot 
rarliament,  ou  the  10th  instant. 

The  telegram  had  enabled  the  public  journals  to  bring  to  my  notice 
this  speech,  or  at  least  that  part  of  it  where  Her  Majesty  is  made'  to 
say  that  the  declaration  of  the  Arbitrators  at  Geneva  is  entirely  con- 
sistent with  the  views  which  she  announced  to  Parliament  at  the  opening 
of  the  session,  and  I  had  observed  what  you  comment  upon,  that  Her 
Majesty  in  her  speech  at  the  opening  of  the  session  had  said,  "  In  the 
case  80  submitted  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  large  claims  have 
been  included  which  are  understood  on  my  part  not  to  be  within  the 
province  of  the  Arbitrators."  A  very  long  correspondence  ensued  in 
which  this  Government  contended,  in  effect,  that  all  the  claims  pre- 
sented were  within  the  proper  jursdictiou  of  the  Tribunal,  and  that 
they  could  be  disposed  of  only  upon  the  judgment,  or  award,  of  the 
Arbitrators.  At  their  fifth  conference,  on  19th  June,  Count  Sclopis,  as 
President  of  the  Tribunal,  on  behalf  of  all  the  Arbitrators,  made  a 
statement,  in  the  course  of  which  he  said,  "  The  Arbitrators  think  it 
right  to  state  that  after  the  most  careful  j)erusal  of  all  that  has  been 
urged  on  the  part  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  respect  of 
these  claims,"  (referring  to  those  which  Her  Majesty  had  thought  were 
not  within  the  province  of  the  Tribunal,)  "  they  have  arrived,  individu- 
ally and  collectively,  at  the  conclusion  that  these  claims  do  not  consti- 
tute, upon  the  principles  of  international  law  applicable  to  such  cases, 
good  foundation  for  an  award  of  compensation,  or  computation  of  dam- 
ages between  natio  fs." 

The  I'resident  ot  ihe  Tribunal,  in  behalf  of  all  the  Arbitrators,  ofti 
cially  states  that  they  had  given  "  the  most  caieful  perusal  '•  to  ''  all  that 
had  been  urged  in  respect  of  the  claims" — this  looks  very  much  like 
taking  cognizance  of  them; — that  after  such  perusal  they  had  not  only 
indivi<lually  but  "collectively"  arrived  at  a  "conclusion ;"  the  "collect- 
ive" action  of  a  IJoard  must  be  official  action. 


■operly  niliii- 
ch  haH  been 

uiy  Govern- 
isontation  of 
18  been  coui- 
th  the  vieWH 
e  with  you  I 
s  passeil  the 
iTangeiuentM 
reflect  with 
iinpciliincnt 


Jl,  1872. 
losing  two 
Houses  ot 

my  notice 

8  made'  to 

tirely  cou- 

le  opening 

that  Her 

,  "  In  the 

lims  have 

ntbin  the 

ensued  in 

aims  pre- 

and  that 

rd,  of  the 

Jclopis,  as 

,  made  a 

think  it 

has  been 

respect  of 

ight  were 

individu- 

ot  consti- 

ich  cases, 

n  of  dam 

itors,  ofti 
''  all  tliat 

nneh  like 
not  only 
"collect- 


COKRESPOXOENCE    RESPECTINCi    GENEVA   AKIUTKATION.      583 

The  Tribunal  then,  after  taking  cognizance  of  these  claims,  otticially 
[)ronounces  the  opinion  that,  upon  the  principles  of  international  law 
applicable  to  such  cases,  they  do  not  constitute  good  foundation  for  an 
award  of  compensation  or  computation  of  damages  between  nations. 
The  President  could  regard  this  only  as  a  definitive  expression — a  judg- 
ment of  the  Tribunal  upon  the  question  of  public  international  law  ap- 
plicable to  such  cases,  deciding  that  claims  for  remote  or  consequential 
injuries  do  not  constitute  good  foundation  for  compensation  in  damages 
between  nations. 

At  the  sixth  conference  (25  June)  the  Agent  of  the  United  States 
stated  that  the  declaration  thus  "made  by  the  Tribunal  is  accepted  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States  as  determinative  of  their  judgment 
upon  the  Important  question  of  public  law  involved,"  and  "that,  conse- 
quently, the  above-mentioned  claims  will  not  be  further  insisted  upon 
before  the  Tribunal  by  the  United  States."  They  had  been  insisted 
upon  before  the  Tribunal,  but  "  will  not  be  further  insisted  upon."  The 
British  Agent  then  said  that  he  would  inform  bis  (Jovernment  of  the 
declaration  made  by  the  Arbitrators  on  the  19th,  and  of  the  statement 
now  made  by  the  Agent  of  the  United  States,  and  request  their  instruc- 
tions. 

Thus  advised  that  the  President  accepted  the  declaration  of  the  Tribu- 
nal as  determinative  of  "  their  judgment  upon  the  important  question  of 
public  law  involved,"  and  that  the  United  States  would  not  further  insist 
upon  these  claims  before  the  Tribunal,  the  British  Agent,  acting  under 
instructions  from  his  Government,  assumed  that  the  Arbitrators  would, 
upon  such  statement,  think  fit  now  to  declare  that  the  said  several  claims 
arc,  and  from  henceforth  icill  he,  excluded  from  their  consideration,  and 
would  embody  such  declaration  in  their  Pro*:ocol  of  that  day's  proceed- 
ings. Upon  this  motion  (as  it  would  be  called  in  a  court  of  law)  of  tho 
British  Agent,  Count  Sclopis,  the  presi'jing  Arbitrator,  on  behalf  of  all 
the  Arbitrators,  then  entered  final  judgment,  declaring  "that  the  said 
several  claims  for  indirect  lessees  mentioned  in  the  statement  made  by 
the  Agent  of  the  United  States,  on  the  2.")th  instant,  and  referred  to  in 
the  statement  just  made  by  the  Agent  of  Her  Britannic  ^Majesty,  are, 
and  from  henceforth  shall  he,  wholly  exchuled  from  the  consideration  of 
the  Tribunal,  and  directed  the  secretary  to  embody  t  lis  declaration  in 
the  Protocol  of  this  day's  proceedings." 

The  Protocols  thus  show  that  these  claims,  which  Her  Majesty  was 
made  to  say  to  Parliament,  on  the  6th  of  February,  were  "understood, 
on  her  part,  not  to  be  within  the  province  of  the  Arbitrators,"  were  by 
them  taken  into  consideration ;  that  the  Tribunal  gave  "  the  most  care- 
ful perusal"  to  all  that  was  urged  on  their  behalf  by  the  United  States ; 
that  it  pronounced  its  collective  opinion  upon  their  legal  inadmissibility 
under  the  principles  of  international  law  as  the  foundation  of  an  award 
of  damages ;  that  the  United  States  declared  their  acceptance  of  this 
opinion  as  the  judgment  of  the  Tribunal  upon  the  question  of  public  law 
involved,  and  expressed  their  willingness  not  to  further  insist  upon  the 
claims  before  the  Tribunal ;  that  the  Arbitrators,  upon  the  suggestion  ot 
the  British  Agent,  declared  the  claims  now  and  from  henceforth  exclu- 
ded from  their  consideration,  and  embodied  in  their  Protocol  the  declara- 
tion requested  by  the  British  Agent. 

If  the  claims  had  not  been  within  the  consideration  of  the  Tribunjil, 
of  what  necessity  the  request  to  ask  a  formal  order  that  they  be  "  from 
henceforth  wholly  excluded?" 

If  they  were  not  within  the  province  of  the  Arbitrators,  why  should 
the  Arbitrators  give  them  consideration,  or  give  the  most  cireful  peru- 


t. 


i 


r)84 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON 


Sill  to  wliat  was  ip-;jc(l  in  ^espect  to  them  ;  or  wliy  sLould  they  express 
their  individual  ancl  collective  opinion  with  regard  to  them  ? 

If  not  within  "  t3ie  province  of  the  Arbitrators,"  why  should  the 
British  Government,  through  instructions  to  its  Ag-ent,  and  upon  the 
statement  of  the  Agent  oi  the  United  States  that  they  will  not  be  fur- 
ther insisted  upon  before  the  Tribunal,  ask  for  the  entry  of  an  order 
upon  the  Protocol  that  they  be,  "  from  henceforth,  wholly  excluded 
from  all  consideration  f 

Her  Majesty's  speeches  to  Parliament,  .although  they  may  justify  in- 
terpretation or  comment  by  other  Powers,  do  not  require  it  in  all  cases. 

However  inconsistent  the  declaration  of  the  Arbitrators  may  in  reality 
be  with  the  view  announced  by  Her  Majesty  to  Parliament  at  the  open- 
ing of  the  session,  I  do  not  see  that  there  is  any  occasion  to  disturb  the 
self-complacency  of  the  expression  with  which  the  Ministry,  througli 
the  Crown,  assure  the  Parliament  that  antagonisms  are  agreements. 

The  Arbitrators  of  Geneva  have  requested  that  secrecy  be  observed 
as  to  their  transactions.  I  am  not  fully  aware  how  far  this  request  is 
intended  to  apply,  but  as  I  have  quoted  from  their  proceedings,  you 
will,  for  the  present  at  least,  give  no  publicity  to  the  citations  or  refer- 
ences I  have  made  to  their  decisions  further  than  as  they  may  have 
reached  you  through  other  cl'annels. 
I  am,  «S:c., 

HAMILTON  FISH. 


S 


ITtl 
Arl 


Xo.  122. 
ISir  E.  Thornton  to  Mr.  Fish. 


Washington,  October  17, 1872.    (Received  October  17.^ 

Sir  :  The  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at  Geneva,  in  the  matter  of  the 
differences  between  Her  Majesty  and  the  United  States  of  America,  on 
whicl  it  was  appointed  to  adjudicate,  having  brought  its  labors  to  a 
close,  and  pronounced,  on  the  14th  ultimo,  its  final  award,  Lord  Gran- 
ville has  informed  me  that  it  has  become  his  duty,  in  obedience  to  the 
Queen's  commands,  to  instruct  me  to  convey  to  the  President  Her  Maj- 
esty's acknowledgments  for  the  care  and  attention  which  Mr.  Adams, 
the  Arbitrator  appointed  by  the  President,  bestowed  on  the  impor- 
tant matter  with  which  he  was  called  upon  to  deal,  and  Her  Majesty's 
high  appreciation  of  the  ability  and  indefatigable  industry  which  that 
distinguished  statesman  displayed  during  the  long-protracted  inquiries 
and  discussions  in  which  he  has  been  engaged. 

I  am  also  instructed  to  submit  to  the  President  that  he  would  be 
pleased  to  make  known  her  Majesty's  sentiments,  as  herein  expressed, 
to  Mr.  Adams. 

I  shall  therefore  feel  much  obliged  to  you  if  you  will  convey  to  the 
President  the  substance  of  the  instructions  which  I  have  received,  for 
the  purpose  of  communicating  which  I  shall  do  myself  the  honor  of 
waiting  upon  him  personally. 
I  have,  &c., 

EDWD.  THORNTON. 


ey  express 

liould  the 
1  upon  tbe 
[lot  be  fur- 
i'  an  order 
'  excluded 

justify  hi- 
I  all  cases. 
'  in  reality 

the  open- 
isturb  tbe 
',  througli 
ments. 

observed 
request  is 
lings,  you 
s  or  refer- 
may  have 


FISH. 


6 


jer  17.^ 

er  of  the 
lericH,  on 
bors  to  a 
rd  Gran- 
ce  to  the 
Her  Maj- 

Adams, 
impor- 
^ajesty's 

ich  that 
inquiries 

vould  be 
pressed, 

y  to  the 
ved,  for 
lonor  of 


fTON. 


CORRKSrONDEXrK    KESPKCTIXCJ    GENEVA    ARIJITRATION.      585 

No.  12;3. 
Mr.  Finh  to  Sir  E.  Thornton. 

Washington,  October  22, 1872. 

Sir  :  1  have  the  lionor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of  the 
17th  instant,  in  which,  after  reference  to  the  fact  that  the  Tribunal  of 
Arbitration  at  Geneva,  in  the  matter  of  differences  between  the  United 
States  of  America  and  Her  Majesty,  had  brought  its  labors  to  a  close 
and  had  pronounced  its  final  award,  you  inform  me  of  instructions  from 
your  Government  to  convey  to  the  President  Her  Majesty's  acknowl- 
edgments for  the  care  and  attention  which  Mr.  Adams,  the  Arbitrator 
appointed  by  the  President,  bestowed  on  the  important  matter  with 
which  he  was  called  upon  to  deal,  and  Her  Majesty's  high  appreciation  of 
the  ability  and  indefatigable  industry  which  that  distinguished  statesman 
displayed  during  the  long-protracted  inquiries  and  discussions  in  which 
he  had  been  engaged.  Also  that  you  are  instructed  to  submit  to  the 
President  that  he  would  be^ileased  to  make  known  Her  Majesty's  sen- 
timents, as  expressed  in  your  note,  to  Mr.  Adams. 

I  have  communicated  the  substance  of  your  note  to  the  President, 
who  directs  me  to  express  the  gratification  with  which  he  receives  the 
intelligence  of  Her  Majesty's  appreciation  of  the  manner  in  which  Mr. 
Adams,  whom  he  had  named  as  one  of  the  Arbitrators,  had  discharged 
the  high  duties  intrusted  to  him. 

This  expression  which  Her  Majesty  has  been  pleased  to  canse  to  be 
communicated  will  be  made  known  to  Mr.  Adams  immediately  on  his 
return  to  the  United  States,  and  will  doubtless  be  appreciated  by  him 
as  a  recognition  alike  grateful  and  honorable  of  his  efforts  to  act  on  the 
High  Tribunal  with  the  dignity  and  impartiality  becoming  a  Judge. 
I  have,  (Jtc, 

HAMILTON  FISH. 


No.  342. 


No.  124. 
General  SchencJc  to  Mr.  Finh.^ 


Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  February  7,  1873. 

Sir  :  With  reference  to  my  No.  341,  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  here- 
with full  reports  from  the  Times  and  the  Standard  of  this  morning  of 
the  proceedings  in  both  Houses  of  Parliament  last  evening. 
I  have,  &c., 

ROBT.  C.  SCHENCK. 


[Inclosurc] 

Extract  from  the  Dtbaten  In  the  House  of  Commons  as  reported  in  the  "  Times"  of  Febru- 
ary 7,  1873. 
Mr.  Gladstone.   »     »    *    Before  parting  with  the  portion  of  the  speech  of  my  right 
houorahle  friend  to  which  I  have  referred,  I  may  say  I  think  he  is  in  error  when  he  states 
that  the  consent  to  what  he  terms  an  apology  on  onr  part — that  is  to  say,  to  an  cxpress- 

» This  correspondence,  which  has  taken  place  since  the  President's  Message  of  De- 
cember 2,  is  added  to  that  then  sent  to  Congress,  with  which  it  is  connected  histor- 
ically. 


r)86 


TRKATV    OF    WA.SHINGTOV. 


Hion  of  n!;{ret  I'or  the  fact  of  the  ttHcape  of  the  Ahilniuia  irrespective  of  all  <|iioritioiiH  of 
right  or  wronj^  coauected  with  it — was  a  coiulitiou  precocloiit  to  the  negotiation  with 
America. 

Mr.  HoHs:Nr.vN.  What  I  said  was  to  the  Ai'bitration. 

Mr.  Gr.AOSTONK.  I  think  it  was  not.  If  my  right  lionorahle  frii-nd  refers  to  the 
papers,  ho  will  find  that  statement  would  not  be  borne  out. 

Mr.  HoKSMAN.  It  occurred  at  Washington. 

Mr.  Gladstonk.  Well,  if  it  occurred  at  Washington  it  was  not  in  the  nature  of  a 
condition  precedent.  The  basis  of  the  whole  proceeding  was  to  arrive  at  an  arbitra- 
tion, and,  therefore,  the  request  for  an  explanation  or  expression  of  regret  on  our  part 
was  not  a  condition  ])recedent  to  that  proceeding.     *     »     » 


No.  125. 


Mr.  Full  to  General  Schenel: 


No.  329.]  DErARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

Washington,  February  20,  1873. 

Sir:  I  have  your  No.  342  with  the  debate  in  Parliament  on  the 
Queen's  speech.  It  may  be  not  of  much  importance  at  this  time,  in  an 
international  ])oint  of  view,  to  correct  what  seems  to  be  an  error  on  the 
part  of  Mr.  Gladstone,  when  in  his  discussion  with  Mr.  Horsman  he  i.s 
reported  as  saying  that  the  expression  of  regret  by  Great  Britain  con- 
tained in  the  Treaty  of  Washington  "  was  not  in  the  nature  of  a  condi- 
tion precedent."  The  facts,  I  think,  will  scarce  sustain  Mr.  Gladstone's 
denial,  and,  without  a  desire  to  provoke  any  discussion,  it  may  be  well 
to  place  on  the  archives  of  your  legation  some  facts  in  connection  with 
this  question. 

The  appointment  of  the  Joint  High  Commission  was  preceded  by  in- 
formal negotiations  between  Sir  John  Hose  and  myself.  The  first  inter- 
view between  us  took  place  on  the  9th  January,  1871,  when  Sir  John 
introduced  the  subject  by  saying  "  he  had  been  requested  by  the  British 
Government,  informally  and  unoflBcially,"  &c.,  "to  ascertain  what  could 
be  done  for  settling  the  peuding  questions  between  the  two  Governments, 
and  that  he  was  authorized  to  say  that  if  it  would  be  acceptable  to  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  to  refer  all  those  subjects  to  a  joint 
commission,  framed  something  upon  the  model  of  the  commission  which 
made  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  he  could  say  that  the  British  Government 
were  prepared  to  send  out  such  a  commission  on  their  part."  At  this 
interview  I  insisted,  among  other  things,  that  Great  Britain  should,  in 
some  form,  admit  her  liability,  at  least  with  respect  to  the  Alabama, 
'•'■and  should  couple  the  statement  with  an  expression  of  regret  for  what  had 
taken  place  to  disturb  the  relations  of  the  two  countries  ;  that  less  than 
this  the  United  States  ought  not  to  be,  and  tcould  not  be,  satisfied  with.^' 

Several  interviews  took  place  between  the  9th  and  24th  January. 
Sir  John  Kose  submitted  a  paper,  which  was  copied  and  returned  to  him . 
A  counter  paper  was  prepared,  and  on  the  24th  January  it  was  read  to 
Sir  John,  but,  for  reasons  stated  to  him,  was  not  formally  given  to  him  ; 
it  was,  however,  fully  discussed,  and  he  was  furnished  confidentially 
with  a  copy  with  the  understanding  that  it  was  a  crude  paper,  and  did 
not  represent  my  views,  except  so  far  as  it  agreed  with  the  purport  of 
the  conversation  then  had.  During  the  discussion  with  him  on  24th 
January,  I  said,  with  regard  to  what  the  paper  contained  relating  to  the 


jllOHtioilH  of 

iiition  with 


fern  to  the 


nature  of  a 
iin  arbitra- 
r>u  our  part 


it  on  the 
me,  Id  an 
3r  on  the 
nan  he  is 
tain  cou- 
a  condi- 
adstone's 
y  be  well 
;iou  with 

ed  by  iii- 
rst  inter- 
Sir  John 
e  British 
lat  could 
rnments, 
le  to  the 
3  a  joint 
an  which 
ernment 

At  this 
lould,  in 
Jabania, 
chat  had 
iss  than 
ed  with.^ 
January, 
i  to  him. 
<  read  to 

to  him ; 
lontially 

and  did 
irport  of 

on  24th 
ig  to  the 


COKRESPOXDENCE    RESPECTING    GENEVA    ARBITRATION. 


587 


Hdmi.ssiou  of  lijibility  on  the  Alabama  claims,  that  "  on  consultation,  I 
had  concluded  that  it  was  not  best  to  make  that  specitic  statement,  but 
instead  thereof,  to  say  that  it  would  he  essential  that  some  important  con- 
cessions should  be  made  as  to  that  class  of  claims,  and  some  expression 
of  regret  at  tvhat  had  been  done.^  My  language  in  the  paper  was :  "  It 
is  necessary,  and  due  to  candor,  to  note  that,  unless  Great  liritain  is 
willing  to,  and  to  express  some  kind  words  of  regret  for  past  occur- 
rences, it  would  be  better  to  take  no  steps.'' 

Sir  John  gave  me  a  copy  of  a  telegram  Avhich  he  sent  to  Lord  (Jran- 
ville,  bearing  date  January  24,  in  which  occuis  the  following  sentence  : 
"  The  Government  hope,  also,  that  in  the  course  of  the  Protocols  some 
expressions  of  regret  not  inconsistent  with  the  dignity  of  England,  nor 
involving  admission  of  national  wrong,  may  be  made."  We  had  now 
progressed  so  far  as  to  render  the  appointment  of  the  Joint  Commission 
a  strong  probability,  and  I  desired  official  assurance  that  the  British  Gov- 
ernment icould  make  the  expression  of  regret,  without  which  we  should 
have  proceeded  no  further.  I  was  then  furnished  a  copy  of  a  telegram 
from  Earl  Granville  to  Sir  Edward  Thornton,  dated  25  January,  1871, 
saying :  "  We  adhere  to  arbitration  as  to  the  point  of  international  law 
on  the  Alabama  ((uestion,  hut  we  should  express  regret  at  the  fact  of  escape 
and  depredations ;  we  do  not  object  to  points  properly  selected  for  arbi- 
tration," «&c.,  &c. 

Having  this  assurance,  the  notes  between  Sir  Edward  Thornton  and 
myself,  preliminary  to  the  appointment  of  the  Commission,  were  passed. 
I  am,  &C., 

HAMILTON  FISH. 


No.  12G. 
General  Schenck  to  Mr.  Fish. 


No.  353.J 


Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  March  C,  1873. 

Sir  :  The  receipt  of  your  No.  329,  correcting  the  error  of  Mr.  Glad- 
stone in  his  statement  made  in  Parliament,  that  the  expression  of  regret 
by  Great  Britain  contained  in  the  Treaty  of  Washington  "  was  not  in  the 
nature  of  a  condition  precedent,"  has  already  been  acknowledged. 

You  say  that,  without  a  desire  to  provoke  anj'^  discussion,  it  may  be 
well  to  place  in  the  archives  of  this  legation  some  facts  in  connection 
with  the  question.  And  I  do  not  understand  that  you  deem  it  neces- 
sary to  have  me  bring  your  dispatch  on  the  subject,  at  present,  to  the 
notice  of  Her  Majesty's  Government.  But  I  cannot  forbear,  before  filing- 
it  away,  to  express  to  you  my  great  satisfaction  that  you  have  thus 
made  authentic  record  of  the  facts  on  this  point  which  preceded  the 
negotiation  of  the  Treaty. 

Although  not  needed  as  confirmatory  evidence,  I  venture  to  set  down 
also  my  testimony  on  the  subject. 

Being  at  Washington,  holding  my  appointment  as  Minister  to  Great 
Britain,  but  instructed  by  the  President  not  to  proceed  to  my  post,  but 
to  remain  and  await  the  issue  of  the  unoflflcial  preliminary  negotiations 
between  you  and  Sir  John  Rose,  because  in  case  of  agreement  between 


588 


TREATY    OF    WASIIIXGTON. 


tbe  two  (.irovcrniuents  to  create  a  Joint  Commission  1  wuh  to  be  noin- 
inated  one  of  the  Commissioners  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  I 
liad  the  honor  to  be  confidentially  informed  and  consulted  during  the 
preparatory  steps.  I  well  remember  that,  from  the  beginning,  you  re- 
quired official  assuran 'J  that  the  British  Government  would  make  ex- 
l-r^ssion  of  regret  for  what  had  taken  place  in  regard  to  the  Alabama 
and  other  cruisers,  declining  to  pass  the  preliminary  notes  with  Sir 
Edward  Thornton  until  this,  among  other  things,  was  distinctly  under 
stood. 


I  am,  &c., 


ROBT.  C.  SCIIENCK. 


THE    AMERICAN    COMMISSIONERS 


AM> 


THK    STATEMENT 


OF 


SIE   STAFFORD   NORTHCOTE, 


AT    EXETEI!. 


IX   HKLATIOX  TO  AX 


ALLEGED  TKOMISE  OF  EXCLUSION  OF  THE  INDIRECT 
CLAIMS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 


J 


N. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


I'llgc. 

No.       1.  A  i»a8MaK«!  f'lom  ii  njk^ccIi  of  Sir  Stullord  Noitlicotts  ;it  ExctiT,  May  17, 

1H72,  as  published  in  tb«  Pall  Mall  Gazette  of  May  IH .')!>:{ 

2.  Extract  lioin  the  London  Times  of  May  SJO,  1872,  giving  a  reitoit  of  tin- 

Hpecch  of  Sir  Stafford  Northcote,  at  Exeter yx\ 

:{.  Extract  from  an  instruction  of  Mr.  Fish  to  Ueneral  Scbenck,  .June  :{, 

187'-^ , .-.iu; 

4.  Copy  of  a  letter  of  Mr.  Fish  addressed  to  eucb  of  tbo  American  Com- 
missioners    -,i)7 

').  Letter  of  Judge  Hoar,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Fish's  letter  of  Jr.ni)  fi ........  ',l)H 

ti.  Letter  of  Judge  Nelson,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Fish's  letter  of  J  uue  ;{ iVJH 

7.  Letter  of  General  Scbenck,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Fish's  letter  of  Juno  3 .">9!) 

8.  Letter  of  Judge  Williams,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Fish's  letter  of  .June  '\ (JOO 

J>.  Extract  from  tbo  3()tb  Protocol  o'  the  Confereuces  of  the  Joint  High 

Commission OOj 

10.  Extract  from  a  speech  of  the  Marquis  of  Ripon,  in  the  House  of  Isolds', 

.June  4,  1872,  taken  from  the  Loudon  Times  of  June  5,  1872 cm 

11.  Letter  of  Sir  Stafford  Northcote  to  Earl  Derby,  June  5,  1872,  read  in  tins 

House  of  Lords  Juno  G,  taken  from  the  report  of  the  proceedings  in 

the  House  of  Lords,  in  the  London  Times  of  June  7 m:\ 


SIR  STAFFORD  NORTHCOTE  S  DECLARATION. 


No.  1. 

A  passage  from  a  speech  of  Sir  Stafford  NortJcote,  delivered  on  the  nth 
day  of  May^  1872,  before  the  Exeter  Cl^amber  of  Commerce,  as  published 
in  the  Pall  Mall  Qas^ette  of  May  18. 

"  Two  questions  have  been  raised :  one  a  personal  question,  as  to  what 
was  the  understanding  between  the  Commissioners  at  the  time  the  Treaty 
was  negotiated ;  and,  second,  a  general  one  as  to  the  claims  for  con- 
sequential damages,  or  indirect  claims.  With  regard  to.the  personal 
question  I  will  only  say  t  .lis — that  we,  the  Commissioners,  were  distinctly 
responsible  for  having  represented  to  the  Government  that  we  under- 
stood a  r.omise  to  be  given  that  these  claims  were  not  to  be  pot  for- 
ward by  the  United  States.  But  if  we  are  to  maintain  that  position,  we 
of  course  must  be  brought  into  painful  relations,  and  perhaps  painful 
questions,  between  ourselves  and  cur  American  colleagues  upou  that 
Commission. 


No.  2. 


Bxtract  from  the  London  Times  of  May  20,  1872,  giving  a  report  of  the 
speech  of  Sir  Stafford  Northcote  at  Exeter. 

SIR  STAFFOUD  NORTHCOTE   ON  THE  ALABAMA  NEGOTIATIONS. 

We  gave  a  brief  telegraphic  anramary  in  the  Times  of  Saturday  of  a 
speech  delivered  by  Sir  Stalibrd  Northcote  at  Exeter.  The  right 
honorable  gentleman  spoke  ou  several  topics  of  in  orest,  the  chief  of 
which  was  the  question  of  the  Alabama  claims.  We  subjoin  a  fuller 
repovt  of  this  portion  of  his  speech.  "I  need  n;*t  tell  you,"  he  said, 
'"  that  this  has  been  a  year  of  great  anxiety  and  of  great  t.'ouble 
to  us  all  connected  with  the  questions  raised  under  that  Washington 
Treaty.  And  perhaps  you  will  forgive  my  saying  that  to  myself  per- 
sonally the  time  we  have  been  going  through  has  been  of  very  con- 
siderable anxiety,  [he<ir,  hear;j  not  the  less  so  because  until  within 
the  last  day  or  two  1  have  felt  myself  in  a  position,  and  we  who  w  re 
the  Commissioners  last  .rear  have  felt  ourselves  in  a  position  in  which 
it  was  our  duty  to  hold  o;ir  tongues.  And  though  holding  one's  tongue 
is  often  very  agreeable  and  very  right,  there  are  occasions  on  which  it 

38  a— II  . 


594 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON. 


imposes  and  involves  considerable  sacrifice.  But  I  think  the  country 
has  generally  appreciated  the  motives  which  have  led  to  our  silence. 
[Hear,  hear.]  We  have  felt  that  it  was  far  biitter  that  we  should  sub- 
mit even  to  misrepresentation,  or  at  all  events  to  suspicion,  which,  we 
think,  we  could  have  cleared  away  if  we  could  speak,  thau  that  we  should 
say  anything  which  could  by  any  possibility  mar  the  settlement  to  which 
we  are  anxiously  looking.  [Hear,  hear.]  But  the  matter  has  now,  this 
week,  passed  into  a  stage  which  places  us  in  a  somewhat  different  posi- 
tion. It  does  not,  indeed,  absolve  us  from  the  necessity  of  great  caution 
in  speaking  of  anything  of  a  personal  character ;  but  it  does  place  us 
in  a  position  in  which  we  may  speak  with  freedom  in  reference  to  the 
great  international  interests  concerned.  Why  I  say  our  position  per- 
sonally has  been  one  of  great  delicacy  and  embarrassment  is  this: 
Two  questions  have  been  raised,  one  the  personal  question  as  to  what 
was  the  und  2r8tanding  between  the  Commissioners  at  all  events,  and 
perhaps  between  the  two  Governments,  at  the  time  the  Treaty  was  con- 
cluded ;  the  other,  as  to  the  general  merits  of  the  question  which  has 
been  raised  with  regard  to  what  are  called  consequential  damages,  or 
the  indirect  claims.  Now  with  regard  to  the  personal  question  I  will  only 
say  this — that  we,  the  Commissioners,  tcere  distinctly  responsible  for  having 
represented  to  the  Government  that  we  understood  a  promise  to  he  given  that 
these  claims  were  not  to  be  putfortvard,  and  icere  not  to  be  submitted  to  arbi- 
tration. That  being  so,  we  are,  of  course,  brought  into  painful  relations  with, 
and  painful  questions  arise  beticeen  ourselves  and  our  American  colleagues 
upon  that  Commission.  It  would  have  been  most  unjustifiable  if,  while 
the  matter  was  under  discussion,  we  had  allowed  any  desire  to  make  out 
our  own  case  in  thismattertointerfere  with  a  great  international  settlement 
going  on.  Whether  the  time  will  ever  come  for  speaking  fully  upon  the 
matter,  I  do  not  know,  and  I  comparatively  little  care.  What  I  am  anx- 
ious for  is  that  a  reasonable  arrangement  should  be  come  to  which  shall 
secure  to  both  countries — and  I  will  go  as  far  as  to  say  to  the  world  at  large 
— the  advantages  which  we  promised  ourselves  in  the  conclusion  of  that 
Treaty.  Now,  while  the  question  was  one  merely  between  the  two  Govern- 
ments it  was  very  diflBcult  to  treat  it  without  entering  on  that  personal  ques- 
tion, but  we  now  see  it  has  passed  beyond  the  two  Governments.  An  ar- 
rangement has  been  provisionally  come  to.  I  think  we  may  say,  between 
the  two  Governments,  which  is  now  awaitir  its  sanction  by  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  and  which,  if  accepted  by  them,  must  come  before  the 
Parliament  and  the  people  of  this  country,  with  a  view  to  its  ratifi- 
cation by  us  also,  and  I  therefore  speak  with  some  litle  freedom,  because 
I  feel  that  I  can  do  so  without  raising  the  other  class  of  question  to 
which  I  refer.  Nothing  can  be  more  satisfactory,  I  think,  than  the  atti- 
tude which  the  people — I  speak  of  the  great  public  of  both  countries — 
have  taken  since  the  difficulty  has  arisen.  There  was  very  great 
satisfaction  in  America,  and  I  believe  that  on  the  whole  I  may  say 
there  was  great  satisfaction  in  England  also,  when  this  Treaty  was 
concluded  last  year.  At  all  events,  both  countries  believed  that  a 
settlementof  the  troublesome  question  had  been  arrived  at ;  that  princi- 
ples were  agreed  upon  that  were  likely  to  be  of  very  great  importance 
for  the  future.  Suddenly,  and  most  unexpectedly  to  the  people  of  this 
country,  and,  as  I  am  perfectly  convinced,  equally  unexpectedly  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  a  difficulty  was  raised  which  seemed  likely 
to  overthrow  the  whole  of  the  settlement.  Nothing,  I  think,  can  have 
been  more  honorable  to  the  public  of  both  countries  than  the  manner 
in  which,  in  the  face  of  that  great  disappointment,  tbey  have  behaved. 


SIR    STAFFORD    NORTHCOTE  S    DECLARATION. 


595 


s  country 
silence. 
)ul(l  sub- 
irhich,  we 
ve  should 

to  which 
liow,  this 

eut  posi- 
,t  cautiou 

place  us 
e  to  the 
tion  per- 
is this: 

to  what 
ents,  aud 

was  con- 
hich  has 
uajsfes,  or 

will  only 
or  having 
liven  that 
'd  to  arbi- 
ions  icith, 
colleagues 

if,  while 
nake  out 
?ttlemeut 
upon  the 
[  am  anx- 
lich  shall 
\  at  large 
•n  of  that 
\  Goveru- 
mal  ques- 
Au  ar- 

between 
Senate  of 
efore  the 
ts  ratifl- 
,  because 
?8tiou  to 

the  atti- 
intries — 
ry  great 
may  say 
■saty  was 
I  that  a 
it  princi- 
portance 
e  of  this 
ly  to  the 
ed  likely 
;an  have 
I  manner 
jehaved. 


There  has  been  no  disposition  to  irritate,  there  has  been  no  disposition 
to  embarrass  the  question ;  on  the  contrary,  there  has  been  an  anxious 
desire  shown  on  both  sides  to  endeavor,  if  possible,  to  undo  this  knot 
and  to  arrive  at  a  satisfactory  conclusion.  And  though  I  do  not  wish 
to  take  credit  to  the  late  Commission  for  what  may  not  belong  to  them, 
still  one  cannot  help  thinking  that  the  manner  in  which  the  negotiation 
was  conducted  on  the  part  of  our  Government,  and  the  manner  in  which 
it  was  conducted  on  the  other  side,  has  had  something  to  do  in  bringing 
about  a  better  feeling  between  the  two  countries  than  previously  existed. 
I  firmly  believe  that  the  natural  irritation  which  pervaded  a  large  pro- 
portion of  the  United  States  immediately  after  the  terrible  civil  war 
through  which  they  had  passed  was  greatly  allayed  by  the  proceedings 
of  last  year,  and  even  if,  which  I  trust  may  not  be  the  case,  those 
arrangements  should  unhappily  fall  through,  I  believe  that  the  disposi- 
tion which  has  been  shown  toward  a  friendly  settlement  will  not  be 
without  its  fruits.  But  with  regard  to  the  prospects  of  a  settlement,  I 
wish  only  to  say  this — that  I  have  great  confidence  that  the  spirit  which 
has  animated  both  T)eoi  les  will  animate  the  authorities  also.  [Hear, 
hear.J  The  Treaty  of  ici,.3t  year  was  arrived  at  under  circumstances  of 
great  difficulty,  arising  from  the  peculiar  relation  of  the  United  States 
Senate  to  the  Government;  and  those  difficulties  were  enhanced  bj  the  fact 
that  the  Treaty  embraced  several  distinct  matters,  and  also  by  the  consid- 
eration that  the  Senate  had,  on  former  occasions,  rejected  a  Treaty  for  the 
settlementof  the  Alabama  claims.  All  this  made  the  negotiation  extremely 
difficult  and  delicate.  I  am  bound  to  say  the  spirit  in  which  those  diffi- 
culties were  dealt  with  by  the  people,  by  the  Government,  and  by  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  was  a  spirit  very  encouraging,  as  if  they 
were  disposed  to  prefer  great  international  considerations  to  the  smaller 
and  more  personal  considerations  to  which  I  have  referred.  Aiid  they 
dealt  with  this  question  in  a  broad  and  statesmanlike  manner,  which,  I 
trust,  augurs  well  for  the  future  settlement  of  this  question.  It  must  be 
felt  by  us  all  that  it  is  of  the  highest  importance  to  the  intei'ests,  not 
only  of  commerce,  but  of  peace  and  tranquillity  thioughout  the  world, 
that  these  questions  which  have  been  raised  should  receive  a  satisfac- 
tory solution;  that  minor  questions,  such  "^  national  delicacy  and 
national  pride,  even — although  I  am  the  la  \  ho  would  wish  to  see 
national  honor  in  the  least  degree  tainted  or  \v<  ukened — should  not  be 
allowed  altogether  to  put  out  of  our  sight  those  very  ^roMt,  broad,  inter- 
national qiiestions  which  are  concerned  in  a  settleuuni  of  this  kind. 
And  my  firm  belief  is,  whether  we  arrive  at  a  settlement  now ,  or  whethtr 
this  matter  should  be  postponed,  and  it  should  be  for  the  future  to  take 
it  up  again  under  happier  auspices,  that  we  have  now  arrived  at  a  stage 
at  which  both  countries  are  prepared  to  give  proper  weight  to  those 
great  questions  to  which  I  have  referred,  and  in  which  no  i)otty  <  iisid- 
eratious  will  be  allowed  to  interfere  with  the  settlement.  [Hear,  hear.J 
I  do  not  speak — you  would  not  expect  me  to  speak — of  the  particular 
arrangement  now  proposed;  but  1  do  believe,  if  the  matter  is  treated  by 
the  Senate  in  the  same  spirit  as  they  dealt  with  our  negotiations  !  & 
year,  we  shall,  before  long,  see  such  a  settlement  of  it  as  will  secuic  to 
the  world  those  fruits  which  we  had  so  ea  nestly  hoped  and  so  confi- 
dently believed  we  had  secured  by  our  negotiations  of  last  year.''  [Ap- 
plause.] 


596 


TREATY    OF   WASHINGTON. 


No.  3. 


Extract  from  an  mstnicUon  of  Mr.  Fish  to  General  Schenelc,  June  3, 1872. 

No.  21C.]  Departjeent  of  State, 

Washington,  June  3,  1872. 
Sir:         ***#*** 

The  coraruuuications  \vliich  the  British  High  Commissioners  may 
have  made  to  their  Government,  either  pending  the  negotiation  or 
since,  can  scarcely  be  urged  with  seriousness  upon  this  Government  for 
acceptance  in  the  construction  of  the  Treaty.  One  of  those  gentlemen 
is  reported  as  saying,  recently,  "that  we,  the  (British)  ('omuiissioners, 
were  distinctly  responsible  for  hjiving  represented  to  the  Government 
that  we  (they)  understood  a  promise  to  be  given  that  these  claims  were 
not  to  be  put  forward,  and  were  not  to  l)e  srbmitted  to  arbitration." 
He  does  not  say  by  whom,  ou  what  occasion,  or  in  what  manner,  such 
promise  was  made.  He  involves  all  his  colleagues  iu  the  representa- 
tion made  to  their  Government,  that  such  promise  had  been  made.  But 
this  seeking  "  ah'Mwde,"  outside  of  the  Treaty  and  of  the  Protocol,  to 
establish  a  meaning  or  to  explain  its  terms,  has  had  the  effect,  which 
the  honorable  baronet  who  made  the  declaration  anticipated,  to  raise 
a  "  personal  question,"  and  1  cannot  allow  this  reference  made  by  Lord 
Granville  to  the  information  furnished  to  Her  Majesty's  Governiucr* 
by  Her  High  Commissioners  to  pass  without  alluding  to  the  representa- 
tion which  Sir  Stafford  Northcote  (one  of  those  Commissioners)  says 
that  the  Commissioners  are  responsible  for  having  made  to  their  Gov- 
ernment. 

Injustice  to  myself  and  my  colleagues  on  the  Araencan  side  of  the 
Commission,  I  musf  take  this  occasion  (the  first  that  has  presented 
itself  since  I  have  seen  the  speech  of  Sir  Stafford  Northcote)  to  say  that 
no  such  promise  as  he  states  that  the  British  Commissioners  represented 
to  their  Government,  as  having  been  understood  by  them  to  be  made  by 
the  American  Commissioners,  was  iu  fact  ever  made.  The  official  com- 
munications between  the  American  and  the  British  Commissioners  (as 
you  are  aware)  were  all  made  by  or  to  me  as  the  first  named  of  the 
American  Commissioners. 

I  never  made  and  never  heard  of  any  such  promise,  or  of  anything 
resembling  a  promise  on  the  subject  referred  to.  None  was  ever  made 
by  me,  formally  or  inturmally,  officially  or  unofficially ;  and  I  feel  entire 
confidence  in  making  the  assertion  that  none  of  my  colleagues  ever 
made  any  promise  or  any  declaration  or  statement  approaching  to  a 
promise  on  the  subject.  What  may  have  been  the  understanding  of  Sir 
Stafford  Northcote,  or  of  his  colleagues,  T  cannot  undertake  to  say ;  but 
that  the  American  Commissioners  gave  him  or  them  any  grounds  to 
understand  that  such  a  promise  was  given  ;i>  he  says  they  represented 
to  their  Government  as  having  been  made,  1  am  bound  most  respect- 
fully but  most  emphatically  to  deny.  I  cannot  conceive  from  what  he 
has  imagined  it,  as  the  only  direct  allusion  to  the  three  classes  of  claims 
(called  the  "  indirect  claims")  was  that  made  on  the  part  of  the  Ameri- 
can Commissioners  on  the  8th  day  of  March,  and  is  set  forth  in  the  36th 
Protocol  in  the  words  in  which  it  was  made. 

The  British  Government  has,  in  the  correspondence  which  has 
recently  taken  place,  endeavored  to  construe  the  withholding  of  an 
estimate  of  those  "  indirect  claims  "  in  connection  with  a  proposition  on 
behalf  of  this  Government,  which  was  declined  by  the  British  Commis- 
sioners, into  their  waiver.    I  have  already  discussed  that  question,  and 


s 
s 

P 
r< 

S 

S( 

a 


S 


.hj 


and 


8IR   STAFFORD    NORTHCOTE's   DECLARATION. 


697 


shall  not  here  again  enter  upon  its  refutation.  The  Protocols  and  the 
stat^einent  approved  uy  the  Joint  Commission  furnish  the  substant'al 
part  of  what  passed  on  that  occasion.  I  am  at  a  loss  to  conceive  what 
representation,  outside  of  the  statement  made  in  the  36th  Protocol,  Sir 
Stafford  Northcote  can  have  made  to  bis  Government.  He  refers  to 
some  "personal  question,"  something  which,  until  'the  time  of  his 
address,  he  and  his  colleagues  had  been  under  oflQcial  restraint  from  dis- 
cussing, but  the  Protocols  and  the  statement  to  which  I  have  referred 
had  been  before  the  public,  both  in  Great  Britain  and  in  the  United 
States,  for  nearly  a  year  before  his  declaration.  It  is  only  within  a  day 
or  two  that  the  .iournals  containing  his  address  have  reached  me.  I 
.have  this  day  addressed  a  letter  to  yourself  and  to  each  of  our  colleagues 
on  the  Commission,  calling  attention  to  Sir  Stafford's  statement,  and  in 
due  time  may  rmke  public  the  correspondence. 


I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant. 
General  Robert  C.  Schenck,  <fcc.,  tfcc,  ikc. 


HAMILTON  FISH. 


No.  4. 


Copy  of  letter  of  Mr.  Fish  addressed  to  each  of  the  American,  Commission- 
ers on  the  Joint  High  Commission. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  June  3, 1872. 

My  Dear  Judge  :  I  beg  to  ask  your  attention  to  the  inclosed  extract 
of  an  address  made  by  Sir  Stafford  Northcote  to  the  Exeter  Chamber  of 
Commerce,  containing  an  extraordinary  charge  that  a  "promise"  had 
been  given  to  the  British  Commissioners  that  what  are  called  the  "  in- 
direct" claims  could  not  be  brought  forward  in  the  arbitration  at 
Geneva  under  the  Treaty  of  Washington. 

Individually,  I  never  heard  of  any  such  promise ;  as  one  of  tlie  Ameri- 
can Commissioners,  I  never  made  any  promise,  nor  suspected  anything 
of  the  kind.  I  have  no  recollection  of  any  question  of  the  kind  being 
raised,  officially  or  unofficially. 

What  may  have  been  the  "understanding"  of  the  British  Commis- 
sioners is  not  a  question  on  which  I  propose  to  enter;  it  is  enough  that 
they,  as  gentlemen,  say  that  they  had  a  certain  understanding.  Sir 
Edward  Thornton  tells  me  that  he,  in  common  with  his  colleagues,  un- 
derbtood  that  the  "  indirect  claims  "  were  waived  ;  he  further  says  that 
hi»  understanding  on  that  point  was  derived  entirely  from  the  presen- 
tation made  of  our  complaints  and  claims  on  the  8th  of  March,  as  set 
forth  in  the  Protocol,  and  he  disclaims  any  knowledge  or  idea  of  any 
"  promise,"  or  of  anything  subsequently  said  on  the  subject.  This  is 
his  personal  and  unofficial  statement  to  me  ;  probably  he  might  foel  a 
delicacy  to  bear  any  public  testimony  on  the  question. 

The  charge  of  Sir  Stafford  Northcote  does  hot  state  specifically  by 
whom  the  promise  was  made ;  but  as  the  official  communication  and  in- 
tercourse of  the  British  Commiss     lers  was  necessarily  confined  to  the 


598 


TREATY   OF    WASHINGTON. 


American  Commissioners,  the  imputation  of  ill-faith,  which  the  charge 
implies,  primarily  attaches  to  the  American  Commissioners. 

I  venture,  therefore,  to  bring  it  to  your  notice,  and  shall  be  pleased  to 
hear  from  you  any  statement  of  your  recollection  on  the  subject,  or  any 
suggestion  on  the  matter. 


I  am,  my  dear  judge,  very  sincerely  yours. 


Hon.  Samuel  Nelson, 

Coo^erstoicn,  Ncic  York. 


HAMILTON  FISH. 


Note. — A  similar  letter  wa8  addroased  to  General  Sclienck,  Judge  Hoar,  and  Judge 
Williams,  the  other  American  Commissioners.  The  inolosnre  mentioned  in  the  letter 
was  the' extract  from  the  speech  of  Sir  Stafford  North  cote,  taken  from  the  Pall  Mall 
Gazette— (No.  1,  above.) 


No.  5. 


Letter  of  Judge  Hoar  in  ansicer  to  Mr,  Fisli's  letter  of  June  3. 

Concord,  June  7, 1872. 

My  Dear  Sir:  I  received  last  evening  your  letter  of  the  3d  instant, 
calling  my  attention  to  an  extract  from  a  speech  of  Sir  Stafford  North- 
cote  before  the  Exeter  Chamber  of  Commerce,  which  you  inclose.  He 
says  that  the  British  Commissioners  represented  to  their  Government 
that  they  understood  a  promise  to  be  given  that  these  claims  (for  conse- 
quential damages)  were  not  to  be  put  forward  by  the  United  States. 

I  cannot,  of  course,  undertake  to  say  what  any  gentleman  "  under- 
stood;" nor  does  it  appear  by  whom,  or  iu  what  manner,  or  on  what 
occasion  Sir  Stafford  "understood"  that  the  promise  was  given. 

I  can  only  say  that  I  never  made  any  such  promise,  either  individu- 
ally or  iu  conjunction  with  others;  that  no  such  promise  was  ever  made 
in  my  hearing  or  with  my  knowledge ;  that  I  never  thought  or  suspected 
that  any  such  promise  existed,  or  was  understood  by  any  one.  On 
the  contrary,  I  always  thought  and  expected  that  those  claims,  though 
incapable  from  their  natuie  of  computation,  and  from  their  magnitude 
incapable  of  compensation,  were  to  be  submitted  to  the  Tribunal  of 
Arbitration,  and  urged  as  a  reason  why  a  gross  sum  should  be  awarded, 
which  should  be  an  ample  and  liberal  compensation  for  our  losses  by 
captures  and  burnings,  without  going  into  petty  details. 
Very  respectfully  and  sincerely,  yours, 

E.  R.  HOAK. 

Hon.  Hamilton  Fish. 


No.  6. 


Letter  of  Judge  Nelson  in  answer  to  Mr.  Fish's  letter  of  June  3. 

Coopbrstown,  June  8, 1872. 

My  Dear  Sir  :  You  call  my  attention  to  an  "extract"  from  the  speech 
of  Sir  Stafford  Northcote  before  the  Exeter  Chamber  of  Commerce,  in 
which  he  states  that  the  British  Commissioners  understood  a  promise 


lO  charge 

leased  to 
!t,  or  any 


FISH. 


and  Judge 
1  the  letter 
e  Van  Mall 


SIR   ST/FFORD   NORTHCOTE  S   DECLARATION. 


599 


b3. 

r,  1872. 

1  instant, 
rd  North- 
lose.  He 
vrernment 
for  conse- 
States. 
I  "  under- 
on  what 
n. 

iudividu- 
ver  made 
suspected 
one.  On 
s,  though 
magnitude 
ibunal  of 
awarded, 
losses  by 


HOAK. 


neS. 

8, 1872. 

he  speech 
irneroe,  ia 
a  promise 


was  given  by  the  American  Commissioners  in  the  course  of  the  negotia- 
tion of  the  Washington  Treaty  that  consequential  damages  or  indirect 
claims  woidd  not  be  put  forth  by  the  United  States  under  that  Treaty. 

The  "  extract"  had  attracted  my  attention  at  the  time  it  first  appeared, 
but  I  was  inclined  to  regard  it  as  the  expression  of  his  understanding, 
rather  than  the  assertion  of  a  fact. 

My  very  great  respect  for  Sir  Stafford,  arising  from  our  intercourse 
during  the  negotiations,  inclined  me  to  this  conclusion.  My  recollection 
is  distinct  that  no  such  promise  was  in  fact  made;  and,  further,  that 
the  only  meeting  of  the  Commissioners  at  which  indirect  injury  or  losses 
were  mentioned  was  that  of  the  8th  of  March,  the  facts  in  respect  to 
which  are  truly  set  forth  in  the  Protocol. 

I  have  watched  the  issue  of  the  difficulties  that  have  arisen  in  the 
execution  of  the  Treaty  with  the  greatest  interest  and  anxiety,  and  was 
very  much  relieved  at  what  yesterday  appeared  to  be  a  solutio'i  satis- 
factory to  both  parties,  and  which  I  see  is  to-day  confirmed. 
Very  truly,  yours 

S.  NELSON. 

Hon.  Hamilton  Fish, 

Secretary  of  State. 


No.  7. 
Letter  of  General  Sehenck  in  answer  to  Mr.  FisJi'a  letter  of  June  3. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  June  20,  1872. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Fish  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  3d  instant,  calling  my 
attention  to  the  statement  made  by  Sir  Stafford  Northcote  in  a  speech 
at  Exeter  last  month.  He  took  occasion  then  and  there  to  declare 
that  he  and  the  other  British  Commissioners,  in  the  negotiations  which 
resulted  in  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  "  understood  a  promise  to  be 
given"  that  what  have  been  known  as  the  indirect  claims  of  the 
United  States  were  not  to  be  put  forward  or  submitted  to  arbitration, 
and  that  they  had  so  represented  to  their  Government. 

1  did  not  fail  to  note  with  surprise  this  statement  of  Sir  Stafford 
when*  it  was  first  announced,  and  still  more  the  mt.  >  ner  of  it.  That  you 
may  better  understand  this,  I  send  you,  from  the  Times,  a  fuller  report 
of  his  remarks  than  is  contained  in  the  extract  you  have  inclosed  me 
from  tbe  Pall  Mall  Gazette. 

In  reply  to  your  appeal  to  me  on  the  subject,  I  have  no  hesitation  in 
saying  distinctly  and  emphatically,  sis  one  of  the  American  Commission- 
ers, that  if  any  promise  of  tbe  kind  mentioned  by  Sir  Stafford  North- 
cote was  given,  I  had  no  knowledge  of  it  whatever ;  nor  do  I  believe 
that  any  such  promise  was  made  by  ray  American  colleagues  of  the 
Joint  Commission,  or  by  either  of  them,  individually  or  collectively. 

W^hat  might  have  been  the  "understanding*'  of  the  British  Commis- 
sioners it  is  impossible  for  me  to  say.  Their  high  character  as  honora- 
ble gentlemen  forbids  my  doubting  for  a  moment  the  assertion  of  either 
of  tbem  when  he  states  that  such  an  impression  existed  in  his  mind. 
The  American  Commissioners  can  only  answer  for  what  they  themselves 
may  have  said  or  done  to  give  just  or  suificient  occasion  for  any  under- 
standing of  ^hat  sort. 


600 


TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON. 


I  would  comment  further  on  tbe  langnuge  employed  by  Sir  Stafford  in 
•connection  with  his  statement,  and  on  what  that  language,  as  reported, 
seemed  to  imply;  but  a  letter  of  his  afterward  addressed  to  Lord  Derby, 
which  it  seems  you  could  not  have  seen  when  you  wrote  to  me,  has  been 
read  in  Parliament  and  published,  giving  quite  a  different  view  of  the 
matter.  It  is  not  left  now  to  be  suspected  that  the  British  Commission- 
ers were  misled  or  deceived  by  some  private  communication  made  to 
them.  In  the  letter  to  Lord  Derby,  a  copy  of  which  I  send  you  here- 
with. Sir  Stafford  explains  that  the  ground  of  his  "  understanding"  was 
the  statement  made  by  the  American  Commissioners  at  the  opening  of 
the  conference  on  the  8th  of  March,  and  which  is  set  forth  in  the  Pro- 
tocol ;  but  that  he  did  not  rely  even  upon  that,  or  on  anything  outside 
of  the  Treaty  itself,  to  support  his  conclusion. 

How  this  opinion,  founded  on  the  terms  of  the  Treaty  and  the  words 
of  the  Proctocol,  which  are  open  for  interpretation  to  all  the  world, 
should  "bring  the  British  Commissioners  into  painful  relations  with  their 
American  colleagues,"  and  cause  "painful  questions  to  arise  between 
them,^  I  do  not  comprehend.  It  is  enough  to  know  that  the  proof  of  the 
"  promise"  is  claimed  now  to  be  derived  inferentially  from  the  language 
of  the  Treaty  and  Proctocol;  and  f  am  sure  that  differences  of  opinion 
as  to  the  meaning  to  be  assigned  to  those  documents  ought  to  bo  and 
can  be  discussed  without  any  need  or  danger  of  making  the  contro- 
versy a  "  personal  question." 

I  am,  my  dear  sir,  very  sincerely  and  truly  yours, 

ROBT.  C.  SCHENOK. 


No.  8. 

Letter  of  Judge  Williams  in  ansicer  to  Mr.  Fish's  letter  of  June  3. 

Department  of  Justice, 

Washington,  June  24, 1872. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of 
the  3d  instant,  inclosing  an  extract  from  an  address  by  Sir  Stafford 
Northcote  in  the  Exeter  Chamber  of  Commerce,  in  which  he  says, 
referring  to  the  claim  for  consequential  damages  under  the  treaty  of 
Washington:  "We  (the  British  Commissioners)  understood  a  promise  to 
be  given  that  these  claims  were  not  to  be  put  forward  by  the  United 
States." 

I  have  no  means  of  knowing  what  the  British  Commissioners  under- 
stood upon  that  subject,  for  an  understanding  may  be  founded  upon  an 
inference  or  an  argument;  but  if  Sir  Stafford  Northcote  means  to  say 
that  any  promise  as  to  said  claims,  noc  found  in  the  Treaty  or  Proctocol 
accompanying  it,  was  given  by  the  American  Commissioners,  I  am  pre- 
pared respectfully  to  controvert  the  assertion.  I  was  never  a  party  to 
any  such  promise,  nor  did  I  ever  hejir  of  anything  of  the  kind,  and  the 
probabilities  that  it  was  made  are  not  very  strong,  for  the  British  Com- 
missioners must  have  known  that  any  promise  modifying  the  Treaty 
would  have  no  validity  if  not  submitted  to  and  approved  by  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States,  which,  of  course,  could  not  be  the  case  with  any 
such  promise,  of  the  existence  of  which  there  is  no  written  evidence.    I 


SIR  STAFFOBO   NOETHCOTE's  DECLARATION. 


601 


presume,  if  Sir  Stafford  Northcote  nsed  the  language  imputed  to  him, 
that  he  was  betrayed  into  an  inaccuracy  of  expression,  and  that  he  only 
intended  to  say  the  British  Commissioners  understood  that  the  claim 
for  consequential  damages  was  not  to  be  put  forward,  and  not  that  any 
promise  to  that  effect,  outside  of  his  construction  of  tne  Treaty  and  Pro- 
tocol, was  given  by  the  American  Commissioners. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

GEO.  H.  WILLIAMS. 
Hon.  Hamilton  Fish, 

Secretary  of  State. 


No.  9. 


Extract  from  the  36th  Protocol  of  the  Conferences  of  the  Joint  High  Com- 
mission. 

At  the  conference  held  on  the  8th  of  March  the  American  Commis- 
sioners stated  that  the  people  and  Government  of  the  United  States  felt 
that  they  had  sustained  a  great  wrong,  and  that  great  injuries  and  losses 
were  inflicted  upon  their  commerce  and  their  material  interests  by  the 
course  and  conduct  of  Great  Britain  during  the  recent  rebellion  in  the 
United  States ;  that  what  had  occurred  in  Great  Britain  and  her  colonies 
during  that  period  had  given  rise  to  feelings  in  the  United  States  which 
the  people  of  the  United  States  did  not  desire  to  cherish  toward  Great 
Britain  ;  that  the  history  of  the  Alabama,  and  other  cruisers,  which  had 
been  fitted  out,  or  armed,  or  equipped,  or  which  had  received  augmenta- 
tion of  force  in  Great  Britain,  or  in  her  colonies,  and  of  the  operations 
of  those  vessels,  showed  extensive  direct  losses  in  the  capture  and 
destruction  of  a  large  number  of  vessels,  with  their  cargoes,  and  in  the 
heavy  national  expenditures  in  the  pursuit  of  the  cruisers,  and  indirect 
injury  in  the  transfer  of  a  large  part  of  the  American  commercial  marine 
to  the  British  flag,  in  the  enhanced  payments  of  insurance,  in  the  pro- 
longation of  the  war,  and  in  the  addition  of  a  large  sum  to  the  cost  of 
the  war  and  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion,  and  also  showed  that  Great 
Britain,  by  reason  of  failure  in  the  proper  observance  of  her  duties  as  a 
neutral,  had  become  justly  liable  for  the  acts  of  those  cruisers  and  of 
their  tenders ;  that  the  claims  for  the  loss  and  destruction  of  private 
property  which  had  thus  far  been  presented  amounted  to  about  fourteen 
millions  of  dollars,  without  interest,  which  amount  was  liable  to  be 
greatly  increased  by  claims  which  had  not  been  presented ;  that  the  cist 
to  which  the  Government  had  been  put  in  the  pursuit  of  cruisers  could 
easily  be  ascertained  by  certificates  of  Government  accounting ofiScers; 
that  in  the  hope  of  an  amicable  settlement,  no  estimate  was  made  of  the 
indirect  losses,  without  prejudice,  however,  to  the  right  to  indemnifi- 
cation on  their  account  in  the  event  of  no  such  settlement  being  made. 

The  American  Commissioners  further  stated  that  they  hoped  that  the 
British  Commissioners  would  be  able  to  place  upon  record  an  expression 
of  regret  by  Her  Majesty's  Government  for  the  depredations  committed 
by  the  vessels  whose  acts  were  now  under  discussion.  They  also  pro- 
posed that  the  Joiut  High  Commission  should  agree  upon  a  sum  which 

39  A— n 


002 


TREATT  or  WASHINOtON 


Ihoald  bd  paid  by  Greftt  Britain  to  ttie  United  States  in  satisfaction  of 
all  the  claims  and  the  interest  thereon. 

The  British  Oommissioners  replied  that  Her  Majesty's  Government 
could  not  admit  that  Great  Britain  had  failed  to  discharge  toward  the 
United  States  the  duties  imposed  on  her  by  the  rules  of  international 
law,  or  that  she  was  justly  liable  to  make  good  to  the  United  States  the 
losses  occasioned  by  the  acts  of  the  cruisers  to  which  the  American  Oom- 
missioners had  referred.  They  reminded  the  American  Oommissioners 
that  several  vessels,  suspected  of  being  designed  to  cruise  against  the 
United  States,  including  two  iioa-clads,  had  been  arrested  or  detained 
by  tbb  British  Government,  and  that  that  Government  had  in  some  in- 
stances not  confined  itself  to  the  discharge  of  international  obligations, 
however  widely  construed,  as,  for  instance,  when  it  acquired,  at  a  great 
cost  to  the  country,  the  control  of  the  Anglo-Chinese  tiotilla,  which,  it 
was  apprehended,  might  be  used  against  the  United  States. 

They  added  that  although  Great  Britain  had,  from  the  beginning,  dis- 
avowed any  responsibility  for  the  acts  of  the  Alabama  and  the  other 
vessels,  she  had  already  shown  her  willingness,  for  the  sake  of  the  main- 
tenance of  friendly  relations  with  the  United  States,  to  adopt  the  prin- 
ciple of  arbitration,  provided  that  a  fitting  Arbitrator  could  be  found, 
and  that  an  agreement  could  be  come  to  as  to  the  points  to  which  arbi- 
tration should  apply.  They  would,  therefore,  abstain  from  replying  in 
detail  to  the  statement  of  the  American  Commissioners,  in  the  hope  that 
the  necessity  for  entering  upon  a  lengthened  controversy  might  be  ob- 
viated by  the  adoption  of  so  fair  a  mode  of  settlement  as  that  which 
they  were  instructed  to  propose ;  and  they  had  now  to  repeat,  on  behalf 
of  their  Government,  the  offer  of  arbitration. 

The  American  Oommissioners  expressed  their  regret  at  this  decision 
of  the  British  Oommissioners,  and  said  further  that  they  could  not  con- 
sent to  submit  the  question  of  the  liability  of  Uer  Majesty's  Government 
to  arbitration  unless  the  principles  which  should  govern  the  Arbitrator 
in  the  consideration  of  the  facts  could  be  first  agreed  upon. 

The  British  Oommissioners  replied  that  they  had  no  authority  to 
agree  to  a  submission  of  these  claims  to  an  Arbitrator  with  instructions 
as  to  the  principles  which  should  govern  him  in  the  consideration  of 
them.  They  said  that  they  should  be  willing  to  consider  what  princi- 
ples should  be  adopted  for  observance  in  future ;  but  that  they  were  of 
opinion  that  the  best  mode  of  conducting  an  arbitration  was  to  submit 
the  facts  to  the  Arbitrator,  and  leave  him  free  to  decide  upon  them  after 
hearing  such  arguments  as  might  be  necessary. 

The  Araericais  Commissioners  replied  that  they  were  willing  to  con- 
sider what  principles  should  be  laid  down  for  observance  in  similar 
cases  in  future,  with  the  understanding  that  any  principles  that  should 
be  agreed  upon  should  be  held  to  be  applicable  to  the  facts  in  respect 
to  the  Alabama  claims. 

The  British  Commissioners  replied  that  they  could  not  admit  that 
there  had  been  any  violation  of  existing  principles  of  international  law, 
and  that  their  instructions  did  not  authorize  them  to  accede  to  a  pro- 
posal for  laying  down  rules  for  the  guidance  of  the  Arbitrator ;  but  that 
they  would  make  known  to  their  Government  the  views  of  the  Ameri- 
can Commissioners  on  the  subject. 

At  the  respective  conferences  on  March  9,  March  10,  March  13,  and 
March  14,  the  Joint  High  Commission  considered  the  form  of  the  declara- 
tion of  principles  or  rules  which  the  American  Oommissioners  desired  to 
see  adopted  for  the  instruction  of  the  Arbitrators,  and  laid  down  for  ob- 
servauce  by  two  Governments  in  future.        \ 


SIR   STAFFOltD   NORTHCOTE's   DECLARATION. 


603 


At  the  close  of  the  conferoDce  of  the  14th  of  March  the  British  Gom- 
liiidsiotiers  reserved  several  qaestions  for  the  consideration  of  their  Qor- 
ernment. 

Note.— Thia  Prootoool  coDtains  the  only  statement  with  respoot  to  the  "  indireot 
losses"  made  by  the  American  Commisaloners.  (See  also  No.  X,  extract  of  Marquis  of 
Kipon's  speech.)  It  was  officially  published,  both  in  Oreat  Britain  and  in  the  United 
States,  nearly  a  year  before  the  meeting  of  the  Exeter  Ciiamber  of  Commerce,  of  May  17, 
1878,  havine  been  laid  before  both  Houses  of  Parliament  about  the  3d  June,  1871,  and 
printed  in  British  Parliamentary  Papers,  North  America,  No.  3, 1871,  which  was  reCaircNi 
at  the  Department  of  State  June  20,  1871. 


No.  10. 


Extract  from  a  speech  of  the  Marquis  of  BipoHj  in  the  House  of  Lords ^ 
June  i,  1872;  taken  from  the  London  Times  of  June  5,  1873. 

My  Lords  :  There  seems  to  have  got  abroad  an  opinion  that  Her  Mf^jes- 
ty's  Commissioners  at  Washington,  last  year,  relied  on  what  has  been 
described  as  a  secret  understanding  subsisting  l)etween  them  and  the 
American  Oommissioners,  that  these  indirect  claims  would  not  be  brought 
forward.  I  should  entirely  agree  with  an  opinion  which  I  believe  was 
expressed  a  day  or  two  ago  by  a  noble  and  learned  lord,  who  generally 
sits  •behind  me,  (Lord  Westbury,)  that  if  Her  Majesty's  Commissioners 
had  been  induced,  by  any  such  understanding,  to  employ  language 
which,  in  their  judgment,  admitted  these  claims,  they  would  be  liable  to 
just  and  severe  blame.  But  I  distinctly  deny,  on  the  part  of  those  who 
were  engaged  in  these  negotiations,  that  that  was  the  case.  We  may 
have  failed  or  we  may  have  succeeded  in  employing  language  which 
excludes  these  claims.  I  will  not  detain  your  lordships  now  by  enter- 
ing into  any  elaborate  argument  on  that  subject,  so  fully  stated  in  the 
correspondence  on  the  table ;  but,  whether  we  failed  or  whether  we  suc- 
ceeded, we  were  not  induced  to  employ  language  which  we  considered 
would  admit  those  claims  by  any  consideration  of  that  kind,  and  which, 
in  this  correspondence,  is  described  as  a  waiver.  On  the  8th  of  March, 
as  referred  to  in  the  Froctocol,  these  claims  were  mentioned  by  the 
United  States  Commissioners — mentioned  in  a  manner  which,  in  sub- 
stance, is  described  in  that  Proctocol  on  your  lordships'  table  /  and  through- 
out the  course  of  th&  subsequent  negotiations  these  claims  were  not  again 
brought  forward. 


No.  11. 


Letter  of  Sir  Stafford  Northcote  to  Earl  Derby,  June  5,  1872,  read  in  the 
House  of  Lords  Jun6  6 ;  taken  from  the  report  of  proceedings  in  the 
House  of  Lords  in  the  London  Times  of  June  7. 


THE  TREATY  OF  WASHINGTON. 


The  Earl  of  Derby  :  My  Lords,  before  the  order  of  the  day  is 
called  on,  I  may  be  allowed  to  trespass  on  your  lordships'  attention  for 
one  moment.    I  have  received,  since  the  debate  of  the  night  before 


604 


TBEATT   OF   WASHINGTON. 


iMt,  a  letter  from  my  Bight  Honorable  friend  Sir  Stafford  Xorthcote,  one 
of  the  Gommissioners  who  negotiated  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  which. 
a«  it  involves  a  matter  of  personal  explanation  respecting  a  statement 
which  had  been  made  by  him,  and  referred  to  in  this  House,  I  have  been 
requested  to  read  to  your  lordships.    It  is  as  follows : 

86  Harlvt  Strkkt,  W.,  June  6, 1879. 

Dkar  Lord  Derby:  I  observe  that,  in  yonr  speeoh  in  tbe  Hoqm  of  Lords  last 
niffht,  yoD  referred  to  a  recent  statement  of  mine  with  regard  to  the  negotiations  at 
Washiuston  in  a  manner  which  shows  me  that  yon,  as  well  as  many  other  persons, 
baye  misnnderstood  my  meaning. 

It  has  been  supposed,  and  you  seem  to  have  supposed,  that  I  said  that  an  under- 
standing existed  between  the  British  and  the  American  negotiators  that  the  claims 
for  indiraot  losses  should  not  be  brought  forward ;  and  it  has  been  inferred  firom  this 
that  we,  relying  upon  that  understanding,  were  less  careful  in  framing  the  Treaty  than 
we  should  otherwise  have  been. 

This  is  incorrect.  What  I  said  was,  that  we  had  represented  to  our  Government 
that  we  understood  a  promise  to  have  been  given  that  no  claims  for  indirect  losses 
should  be  brought  forward.  In  »o  saying,  I  rrfnred  to  the  etatement  voluntarily  and 
formally  made  hy  the  Amerioan  Commiesionert  at  the  opening  of  the  conference  of  the  6th  of 
Marehf  which  1,  for  one,  understood  to  amount  to  an  engagement  that  the  claims  in 
question  should  not  be  put  forward  in  the  event  of  a  treaty  being  agreed  on. 

I  will  not  enter  into  a  discussion  of  the  grounds  upon  which  I  came  to  that  conclu- 
sion ;  but  u>ill  aimply  say  thflt  we  never  for  a  moment  thought  of  relying  upon  it,  or  upon 
any  other  matter  outeide  of  the  Treaty  itself .  We  thought,  as  I  stiil  think,  that  the  Ian- 
guage  of  the  Treaty  was  sufficient,  according  to  the  ordinary  rules  of  interpretation,  to 
exclnde  the  claims  for  indirect  losses.  At  all  events,  we  certainly  meant  to  malte  it  sc. 
I  remain,  yours,  very  faithfully, 

STAFFORD  H.  NORTHCOTE. 

The  Earl  of  Derby.  « 

Perhaps  you  will  kindly  read  this  in  the  House  of  Lords  to-morrow. 


)te,  one 

wnioh. 

btemeut 

vebeen 


\,  1873. 

>rdfl  last 
ktiont  at 
penou, 

I  nnder« 
a  claims 
rom  thii 
aty  than 

ernment 
3t  losses 
sHIy  and 
he  6th  of 
laims  in 

conola- 
,  or  upon 
the  lan- 
ition,  to 
ike  it  sc. 

30TE. 


